Braggs v. Madden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES BRAGGS, Case No.: 24-cv-00167-AJB-MSB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, (2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 15 Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) CLOSING THIS CASE 16

17 (Doc. Nos. 8; 10) 18 19 Before the Court is Respondent Raymond Madden’s (“Respondent”) motion to 20 dismiss Petitioner Charles Braggs’ (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus. 21 (Doc. No. 8.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule HC.2, the matter was referred to 22 Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). See CivLR 23 HC.2.e.1. On February 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Berg issued the instant R&R, 24 recommending the Court grant Respondent’s motion and dismiss the case with prejudice. 25 (Doc. No. 10 at 18.) Objections to the R&R were due to be filed with the Court no later 26 than March 7, 2025 (see id.); however, to date, no objections have been filed. 27 I. JUDGE BERG’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 1 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make 2 a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 3 recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 4 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 6 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 7 objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 8 record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 9 note to 1983 addition (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 10 Neither party has filed an objection to Judge Berg’s R&R. Thus, having carefully 11 considered the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear 12 error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R in its 13 entirety and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. 14 II. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 A state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s denial of a habeas petition must 16 obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Rule 11 of the Rules 17 Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires the Court to “issue or deny a certificate of 18 appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. 19 § 2254. “Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on 20 procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional 21 claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 22 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural 23 grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should 24 issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 25 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists 26 of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 27 ruling.” Id. at 484. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct 28 to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the 1 || district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to 2 || proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.” Id. “Because both 3 || of these components are necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability, the U.S. Supreme 4 ||Court has encouraged district courts to address the procedural prong first.” Alatorre v. 5 || Figaroa, No. 13-CV-1622-JLS-MDD, 2014 WL 3908618, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) 6 || (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 485; Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877, 884 & n.6 (9th Cir. 7 ||2001)). 8 Here, the Court concludes that no jurist of reason would find it debatable whether 9 Court was correct in its procedural ruling that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas 10 || corpus is untimely. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and GRANTS 13 ||Respondent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Additionally, the Court DENIES a 14 certificate of appealability. As this Order concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk 15 || of Court is directed to close the case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: March 17, 2025 © 18 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28