Lewis v. Unknown
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to deny Respondents' motion to dismiss a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court adopted the R&R and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.“The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the de novo standard required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Thomas v. Arn for reviewing an R&R, even though no objections were filed. The court found the R&R accurate and well-reasoned. |
Denied Respondents' motion to dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice.“and DENIES Respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion. While the order does not detail the specific legal reasoning for the denial (e.g., tolling or equitable exceptions to the statute of limitations), it relies on the Magistrate Judge's finding that the R&R was accurate and well-reasoned. The denial without prejudice allows the case to proceed to an answer. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Thomas v. Arn. It notes that no objections were filed but proceeds to adopt the R&R based on its own review finding it accurate and well-reasoned. The procedural posture is handled correctly.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD R. LEWIS, Case No. 20-cv-1042-MMA (MSB)
12 Petitioner, ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING RESPONDENTS’ 14 MR. PICKETT, Warden, and ROB MOTION TO DISMISS BONTA, Attorney General of the State of 15 California, [Doc. Nos. 23, 28] 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Donald R. Lewis (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 17. 21 Respondents Mr. Pickett and Rob Bonta1 (“Respondents”) filed a motion to dismiss on 22 the grounds that the Petition is untimely. See Doc. No. 23. The matter was referred to 23 United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for preparation of a Report and 24 Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 25 72.1.d and HC.2. The Magistrate Judge has issued a R&R recommending that the Court 26 27 1 Rob Bonta replaced Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California. Therefore, he is automatically 28 1 ||(1) deny Respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and (2) order Respondents to 2 ||file an answer. See Doc. No. 28 at 21. 3 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set 4 ||forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 5 ||Where the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo 6 ||determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. 7 ||§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). A district judge may 8 ||“accept, reyect, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 9 ||the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 10 ||F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 11 ||2006). Objections to the R&R were due no later than June 1, 2021. See Doc. No. 28 at 12 ||21. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 13 The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has issued an accurate Report and well- 14 ||/reasoned Recommendation that the motion be denied. The Court therefore ADOPTS the 15 ||R&R in its entirety and DENIES Respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. The 16 ||Magistrate Judge will issue a separate scheduling order in due course. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 |/Dated: June 10, 2021 20 HON. MIC HAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Wilkins v. Ramirez 04CV00118-J (WMC) · 2006-10-02