Bahrambeygui v. Robertson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALI HASSEM BAHRAMBEYGUI, Case No. 21-cv-01153-BAS-AGS Petitioner,

ORDER: v. (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND

JIM ROBERTSON, et al.,

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS

Respondents. ENTIRETY (ECF No. 14); AND

(2) GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 2)

Petitioner Ali Hassem Bahrambeygui, proceeding pro se, filed his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while his state habeas petition is still pending in the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1.) Bahrambeygui filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (ECF No. 2.) On December 3, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Bahrambeygui’s Motion, giving Respondents fourteen days to file any objections. (ECF No. 14.) To date, no party has filed an objection to the R&R. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” /d. But “[t]he statute makes 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); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Jd. “When no objections filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 12 || 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so). In this case, the deadline for filing objections was December 17, 2021. However, parties have not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 at 1121. Having nonetheless reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the R&R’s /recommendations. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. (ECF No. 14.) The Court therefore GRANTS Bahrambeygui’s Motion for Stay }and Abeyance. (ECF No. 2.) Within 14 days of the state court’s decision resolving his claims, Bahrambeygui must file a motion requesting that the stay be lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

DATED: December 20, 2021 ( yi uA (Liphan 6 United States District Judge