Scott v. Cates, 3:22-cv-01101

Ellis Bernard Scott, a pro se inmate, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2018 San Diego conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.
Scott initially moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), but the court denied this after reviewing his prison account balance; the petition was dismissed until Scott paid the $5.00 filing fee.
After payment, the case was reopened; the respondent filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied, permitting the case to proceed on the merits.
The respondent then answered the petition; Scott did not file a Traverse in reply.
Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation denying Scott’s petition; no objections were filed by either party.
The District Court reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, and adopted it, denying Scott’s habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scott’s 2018 conviction violated federal rights	Conviction was unlawful; challenges conviction for assault with a deadly weapon	Conviction was lawful; no constitutional violation occurred	Court found no grounds for habeas relief and denied the petition
Adequacy of habeas process	Sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254	Opposed habeas relief, supported conviction	Habeas petition denied after R&R adopted
Handling of IFP status and fee	Claimed inability to pay	Prison account showed sufficient funds	Court required, received fee, then reopened case
Objections to magistrate’s R&R	Filed no objections	Filed no objections	Court reviewed for clear error, found none; adopted R&R

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 510 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974) (explaining standard for district court review of R&R without objections)
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (clarifying de novo review required only if objections to R&R are filed)