Opinion
CV 08-741-ST.
June 3, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 11, 2010, Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart filed a Findings and Recommendation (doc. 37) in the above-caption case, recommending that the court deny Petitioner Richard Bull's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1).
The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Neither party timely filed objections. This relieves me of my obligation to review Magistrate Judge Stewart's factual and legal findings de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ( 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (The district court "must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.") (emphasis in original). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 37) as my own opinion, and I DENY the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1). Additionally, I DENY a Certificate of Appealability because 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.