United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2019

Storey v. Paramo

Storey v. Paramo
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided August 27, 2019
Storey v. Paramo

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONTAZE A. STOREY, Case No.: 17cv23-LAB (MSB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION; AND DANIEL PARAMO, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 15 Respondent. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 17 This amended order replaces the order signed August 26, 2019 (Docket no. 26.) The Clerk is directed to replace that order with this one.

19 Petitioner Dontaze Storey, a prisoner in state custody, filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Berg who, on March 22, 2019, issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”). Judge Berg’s R&R set forth a thorough account of the procedural history and analysis Storey’s claims, and recommended denying the petition.

24 The Court granted three separate extensions of time for Storey to file his objections to the R&R, most recently extending the deadline to August 12, 2019. Still, he has filed no objections.

27 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must ||determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly || objected to.” Jd. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 || This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections 5 filed. Thomas yv. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the || district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo □ || objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 || (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

9 The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The || Petition is DENIED.

1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 ||Dated: August 27, 2019 bi A By WY Hon. Larry Alan Burns 15 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.