Opinion
Case No. 6:16-cv-0812-YY
06-11-2018
JOSE L. NAVARRO-PAREDES, Petitioner, v. JEFF PREMO, Respondent.
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on May 18, 2018. ECF 37. Judge You recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "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." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate's findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) ("There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed."); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise"). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act "does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
Petitioner timely filed an objection. ECF 39. Petitioner offered no bases or argument for his objections, but simply identified certain of Judge You's findings and conclusions and stated that Petitioner objected to them. A "general" objection to a Finding and Recommendation does not meet the "specific written objection[]" requirement of Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Velez-Padro v. Thermo King de Puerto Rico, Inc., 465 F.3d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 2006) ("Conclusory objections that do not direct the reviewing court to the issues in controversy do not comply with Rule 72(b)").
The Court thus considers Judge You's Findings and Recommendation not to have any objections. The Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court notes that even with a de novo review, the Court would adopt Judge You's Findings and Recommendation. --------
The Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 37. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 2) is DENIED. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge