Opinion
2:21-cv-01848-MK
06-01-2023
DALE EUGENE BROOKS, Petitioner, v. JAMIE MILLER, Respondent.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai. ECF No. 37. Judge Kasubhai recommends the this federal habeas petition be denied.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge'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 judge'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.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”
In this case, no party has filed objections to the F&R. The Court finds no error and the F&R, ECF No. 37, is ADOPTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is DENIED. The Court also DENIES a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
It is so ORDERED.