From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 13, 2015
CASE NO. 13-CV-2676-LAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 13-CV-2676-LAB-DHB

02-13-2015

LIONEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID LONG, Warden, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Williams filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 9, 2013. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Bartick for Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Judge Bartick issued his R&R on August 26, 2014, recommending that Williams' petition be denied in its entirety. Judge Bartick ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed by September 26, 2014. Williams has filed no objections.

"The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." § 636(b). Moreover, § 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has determined that the "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it correct. The R &R is ADOPTED and the petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 13, 2015

/s/_________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Williams v. Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 13, 2015
CASE NO. 13-CV-2676-LAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Williams v. Long

Case Details

Full title:LIONEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID LONG, Warden, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 13, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. 13-CV-2676-LAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015)