Opinion
NO. LA CV 13-06579-VBF (GJS)
12-21-2015
RAYMOND ANTHONY SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER: Vacating November 19, 2015 Orders and Judgment; Overruling Petitioner's Objections and Adopting the Magistrate Judge's R & R; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment
The deadline for petitioner to file objections to the R&R, i.e. to tender objections to prison staff for mailing, was November 9, 2015. On November 19, 2015, having received no objections from Petitioner, the Court issued an Order that accepted the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 51), denied the habeas petition, dismissed the action with prejudice; a separate order denying a certificate of appealability ("COA") (Doc 53); and a separate final judgment in favor of respondent and against petitioner (Doc 52).
The Clerk's Office stamped petitioner's objections "received" as of November 23, 2015. On December 4, 2015, this Court issued a Notice of Document Discrepancies (Doc 54) which deemed the objections to be timely and allowed them to be filed. Accordingly, the Court temporarily VACATES the November 19, 2015 Order Adopting R&R (Doc 51), the November 19, 2015 Order Denying COA (Doc 52), and the November 19, 2015 Judgment (Doc 53) -- so that the habeas petition may be temporarily reinstated and petitioner's objections to the R&R considered.
Absent evidence or allegation to the contrary, the Court will assume that the respondent received petitioner's objections on the same date when our Clerk's Office received them, Monday, November 23, 2015. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), respondent had the right to file a response to petitioner's objections within fourteen calendar days after receiving them. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, the fourteen days began running on Tuesday, November 24, 2015, and elapsed at midnight on Monday, December 7, 2015. That was two weeks ago, and respondent has neither filed a response to the objections nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court proceeds without waiting further for a belated response from respondent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), all other documents filed in this action, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and petitioner's Objections to the R&R. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those matters to which petitioner has stated a sufficiently specific written objection, and finds that the objections fail to identify any error of law, fact, or logic in the R&R.
ORDER
The R&R is ADOPTED.
The habeas corpus petition is DENIED.
Final judgment will be entered in favor of the respondent and against petitioner.
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), that judgment will be entered by separate document.
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order as well.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice and the case is TERMINATED. DATED: December 21, 2015
/s/_________
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE