John Wesley Noble v. Josie Gastelo
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 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 the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a habeas corpus petition. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granted the Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
| 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. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order notes that no objections were filed. While the order states it adopted the R&R 'in its entirety,' the legal standard cited (de novo for objections) is the correct framework for the court's duty. The court's review of the record and submissions supports the adoption. |
Granting of the Motion to Dismiss“The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.” | unclear | unsure The order does not specify the legal standard for the Motion to Dismiss (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(b)(1)). However, it adopts the R&R which presumably contained the analysis. Without the text of the R&R, the specific legal basis for the dismissal is not visible in this order, but the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is valid. |
Dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.” | unclear | unsure The dismissal with prejudice is the operative relief. The order does not state the substantive reason for the dismissal (e.g., failure to exhaust, statute of limitations, or lack of jurisdiction). It relies entirely on the adopted R&R. As the R&R is not provided, the substantive correctness cannot be fully evaluated, but the procedural act of dismissing based on an adopted R&R is standard. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory and rule-based framework for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions. However, the order is extremely brief and does not recite the substantive legal reasoning for the dismissal, relying entirely on the adopted R&R. While this is permissible, it makes the order itself 'sound with gaps' because it does not independently articulate the legal basis for the dismissal, only the procedural adoption of the recommendation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY NOBLE, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02020-WQH-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 JOSIE GASTELO, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF 18 No. 14) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19 17). The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 20 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 22 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 23 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 24 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 25 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 26 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 27 Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 28 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 1 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 2 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is 4 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 14) is 5 ||GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with 6 || prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 || Dated: September 2, 2021 BME: Me Z. A a 8 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28