Mourning v. McDowell
- 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 reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, noting that no objections were filed by either party. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied 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. 20) 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), a district judge must make a de novo determination of portions of the report to which objection is made. The order recites that no objections were filed. While the order states the de novo standard, it correctly notes that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions, citing Wang v. Masaitis and United States v. Reyna-Tapia. The court reviewed the record and adopted the R&R, which is a permissible exercise of discretion when no objections are raised. |
Denial of 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 Jeffery Lee Mourning (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.” | unclear | unsure The court denied the habeas petition by adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The order does not recite the specific legal grounds for the denial (e.g., procedural default, failure to exhaust, or lack of merit) because it relies entirely on the underlying R&R. Since the R&R is not provided in the text, the specific legal basis for the denial cannot be evaluated. However, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R to deny the petition is standard practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) to support the conclusion that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and submissions before adopting the R&R. The only gap is that the order does not summarize the substantive legal reasons for denying the habeas petition, relying entirely on the adopted R&R, but this is common in such orders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY LEE MOURNING, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00786-WQH-NLS 12 ORDER Petitioner, 13 v. 14 NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden, et. 15 al., 16 17 Respondents. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the 20 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20). 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 26 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 27 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 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. 20) 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 Jeffery Lee Mourning 8 ||(ECF No. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of 9 || Respondents and against Petitioner. 10 || Dated: December 21, 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