Muro v. Gipson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO MURO, Case No.: 22cv550-LL-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATON DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 14 CONNIE GIPSON, et al., STAY AND ABEYANCE AS MOOT 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 13] 16 17 18 On April 20, 2022, Antonio Muro (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to 21 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). ECF No. 4. 22 On August 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a Report and 23 Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s motion for 24 stay and abeyance as moot because Petitioner exhausted his claims with the California 25 Supreme Court and now satisfied the exhaustion requirement with respect to both claims 26 presented in his Petition. ECF No. 13. The R&R also ordered that any objections were to 27 be filed no later than September 9, 2022. Id. at 5. To date, no objection has been filed, nor 28 has there been a request for additional time to file an objection. 1 As set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 || Procedure, a district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 3 ||report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 4 1/28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 5 ||amendment. The district court need not conduct a de novo review of any findings and 6 || recommendations to which no objections are filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 7 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal 8 ||Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 9 || recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”’). 10 In the instant case, no party has filed an objection to the R&R, and the Court further 11 || finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 12 ||hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation [ECF 13 || No. 13] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by 14 || reference, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance [ECF 15 || No. 4]. Petitioner is directed to file his amended petition on or before November 17, 2022. 16 || Failure to file an amended petition will result in dismissal of this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: October 3, 2022 NO 19 QF | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28