Opinion
Case No.: 15-cv-1005 BEN (MDD)
12-03-2015
STEVEN DANIEL DEJARLAIS, Petitioner, v. AUDREY KING, Warden, et al., Respondent.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) DENYING PETITION;
(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On May 5, 2015, Petitioner Steven Daniel DeJarlais filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1.) On July 27, 2015, Respondent filed an Answer. (Docket No. 9.) On October 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Dembin issued a thorough and thoughtful Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 14.) Petitioner filed an untimely, general objection. (Docket No. 16.)
I. De Novo Review of Petition
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a proper objection to a report and recommendation has been filed, the district court reviews de novo those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which the petitioner objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). A general objection is tantamount to no objection at all. See Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-cv-401-IEG, 2013 WL 4517861, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) ("A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object."); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) ("[A]n objection stating only 'I object' preserves no issue for review."); and Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)); see also Martin v. Ryan, No. cv-13-381, 2014 WL 5432133, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2014) (citing United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Petitioner filed a general Objection "alleg[ing] the Magistrate[ Judge's] findings of fact are unreasonable in light of the record, when taken as a whole." (Objection 1.) Petitioner also "incorporate[d] by reference those facts, claims, and arguments contained in the 'Petition'." (Objections 1.)
The Court finds Alcantara and the laws of the other circuit courts persuasive. It is apparent that Petitioner failed to make any specific objections to the Report. Thus, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See Garcia v. Subia, No. 07cv1869, 2011 WL 1119181, at *3, *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2011); Sullivan v. Schriro, No. 04-1517, 2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2006). Even still, the Court did perform a de novo review of the entire record in this matter and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
II. Certificate of Appealability
"The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this case, the Court finds that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason, and a court could not resolve the issues in a different manner. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendation. The Petition is DENIED. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment denying the Petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 03, 2015
/s/_________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge