Sanchez v. Koenig
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the respondent's motion to dismiss, following a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which no objections were filed. The court adopted the R&R, granted the motion to dismiss, denied the petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopting the Report and Recommendation in its entirety“Thus, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 7).” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), when no objections are filed to an R&R, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review and may adopt the R&R. The order notes that no objections were filed by the deadline, justifying the adoption. |
Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss“The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4)” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the motion to dismiss based on its agreement with the Magistrate Judge's R&R. While the specific legal grounds for the dismissal (e.g., procedural default, failure to state a claim) are contained in the R&R (ECF No. 7) rather than this order, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R to grant the motion is legally sound given the lack of objections. |
Denying Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus“and DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1).” | unclear | agree with court The denial of the habeas petition follows directly from the granting of the motion to dismiss. As the motion to dismiss was properly granted via adoption of the unobjected-to R&R, the dismissal of the petition is the correct procedural consequence. |
Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability“the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court applied the correct standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and cited the appropriate Supreme Court authority (Slack v. McDaniel). The court found that reasonable jurists could not debate the outcome, which is the correct test for denying a COA in a habeas case where the petition is dismissed on the merits or procedural grounds. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, cites the correct statutory and case law standards for adopting an unobjected-to R&R, and correctly applies the standard for denying a Certificate of Appealability. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural order adopting an R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DAVID SANCHEZ, Case No. 20-cv-01783-BAS-BGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING 14 CRAIG KOENIG, REPORT AND 15 Respondent. RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY (ECF No. 7); 16 17 (2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 4); 18 19 (3) DENYING PETITION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND 20 21 (4) DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 22 APPEALABILITY 23 25 Petitioner John David Sanchez is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel. He filed 26 a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2017 conviction in San Diego County 27 28 1 Superior Court case number SCE359409. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the 2 petition (ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 6). 3 On July 16, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a 4 Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Defendant’s motion 5 to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) Judge Skomal ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed 6 no later than August 2, 2021. (Id. 31:1–3.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections 7 or requested for additional time to do so. 8 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 9 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 10 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute makes 11 it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 12 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 13 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 14 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, 15 the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 16 Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 17 recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections 18 are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 19 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without 20 review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so). 21 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was August 2, 2021. However, the 22 parties have not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. Consequently, 23 the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 24 Having nonetheless reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the R&R’s 25 recommendations. Thus, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety 26 (ECF No. 7). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) 27 and DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1). 28 1 In addition, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a 2 ||substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3 || Petitioner has made no such showing. Because reasonable jurists could not debate whether 4 || “the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 5 || were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,’” the Court DECLINES to 6 ||issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 7 || (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 /) bod 10 || DATED: August 4, 2021 Cypilling Hioha sk i United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28