Siegel v. Neuschmid
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Masaitis, 416 F.3d
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending the motion be granted. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the motion to dismiss the petition.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is adopted in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because no party filed an objection, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings, though it noted it reviewed the record. Adopting the R&R in its entirety is a permissible outcome when the magistrate's recommendation is supported by the record and no objections are raised. |
Granting of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss“Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is granted.” | unclear | agree with court The order grants the motion to dismiss based on the adoption of the R&R which recommended dismissal as untimely. While the specific legal standard for timeliness (e.g., AEDPA statute of limitations) is not explicitly recited in this short order, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is sound. The dismissal follows logically from the adoption of the recommendation to dismiss. |
Dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.” | unclear | agree with court The dismissal is the direct consequence of granting the motion to dismiss. The order does not specify if the dismissal is with or without prejudice, which is a minor gap, but the core ruling to dismiss the petition is procedurally correct given the grant of the motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). It correctly notes that because no objections were filed, a de novo review of the specific findings was not strictly required, although the judge did review the record. The citations to Ninth Circuit precedent (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) are appropriate and support the court's authority to adopt the R&R without de novo review. The order is concise but legally sufficient for a non-contested adoption of an R&R.
Opinion
1 □ “ O 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT... FERRET 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA“ — □□ 9 10 || JOSHUA SIEGEL, . Case No.: 18-cv-2493-WQH-BGS 11 Petitioner, ORDER > 12 || . . 13 || ROBERT NEUSCHMID: 14 XAVIER BECERRA, The: Attorney General of the State of 15 || California, . fo 16 Respondents. 17 HAYES, Judge: □ . 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of 19 || Habeas Corpus as Untimely filed by Respondent Robert Neuschmid (ECF No. 6) and the 20 Report and. Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF ‘No. 9) recommending 21 |! that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 23 || magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 24 1US.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 25 of the report... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 26 Il or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(b){1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 28 |! recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 I }/n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States y. Reyna-Ti apia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003 2 |; (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge t 3 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept a 4 correct.”),- No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court ha: 6 |/reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 7, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is adopted in its entirety, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is granted. The 9 || Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. tof} / 11 |}/DATED: 2/ [ze 12 WILLIAM Q. HAY, United States Distr Au Judge 13 oe □ 14 15 16 17 || - □ 18 |{ 20 || 21 22