Filed: Jan. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Petitioner Charles McCraw filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Major pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the claims McCraw was raising were not cognizable on habeas review. On December 1, 2017, Judge Major issued her report and recommendation (the "R&R
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Petitioner Charles McCraw filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Major pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the claims McCraw was raising were not cognizable on habeas review. On December 1, 2017, Judge Major issued her report and recommendation (the "R&R"..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Petitioner Charles McCraw filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Major pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the claims McCraw was raising were not cognizable on habeas review. On December 1, 2017, Judge Major issued her report and recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition dismissed without prejudiced to the claims being raised in a petition under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Objections to the R&R were due December 29, 2017 and the R&R warned the parties that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise them later on appeal. Since then, McCraw has filed no objections, nor sought additional time in which to do so.
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." Id. "A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). "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." Id.
Having considered the R&R, the Court finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to its claims being raised in a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another appropriate action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
