Kane v. Gastelo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. KANE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD 12 ORDER Petitioner, 13 v. 14 JOSIE GASTELO, 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the 19 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19). 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 21 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 23 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 24 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 25 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 26 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 27 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 28 1 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 2 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”’). 3 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 4 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is 6 |} ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of 7 || Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Michael D. Kane (ECF 8 ||No. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent 9 || and against Petitioner. 10 || Dated: November 25, 2020 BME: ie Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28