Kane v. Gastelo
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Report and Recommendation regarding a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, noting that neither party filed objections. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation where no objections were filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of portions of a Report and Recommendation to which no party objects. The court reviewed the record and adopted the recommendation, which is a procedurally sound action. |
Denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Michael D. Kane (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.” | unclear | unsure The order denies the habeas petition by adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. However, the order itself does not recite the specific legal grounds or factual findings from the Report and Recommendation that support the denial. While the procedural mechanism of adoption is correct, the substantive legal basis for the denial is not visible in this order alone, making it impossible to fully evaluate the correctness of the underlying legal application without the referenced ECF No. 19. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. It follows the required procedural steps by reviewing the record and adopting the recommendation. However, it is a summary order that does not articulate the substantive legal reasoning for the underlying habeas denial, relying entirely on the referenced Report and Recommendation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. KANE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD 12 ORDER Petitioner, 13 v. 14 JOSIE GASTELO, 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the 19 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19). 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 21 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 23 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 24 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 25 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 26 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 27 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 28 1 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 2 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”’). 3 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 4 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is 6 |} ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of 7 || Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Michael D. Kane (ECF 8 ||No. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent 9 || and against Petitioner. 10 || Dated: November 25, 2020 BME: ie Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28