Opinion
No. SA CV 17-01138-VBF-LAL
04-08-2019
FELIPE JESUS DELGADO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM MUNIZ (Warden), Respondent.
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Terminating & Closing Action (JS-6)
The Court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (CM/ECF System Document ("Doc") 1 and the supporting memoranda (Docs 2 and 10); the respondent government's lodged documents (Doc 9), amended answer memorandum (Doc 28), and supplemental lodged documents (Doc 29); petitioner Delgado's October 10, 2018 reply to the amended answer (Doc 32); the March 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc 35) and petitioner's timely April 1, 2019 objections thereto; and the applicable law. The respondent did not file a response to the objections within the time allotted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court finds discussion of the objections to be unnecessary on this record. "The Magistrates Act 'merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.'" It does not require a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). "This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing." Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement his recommendations.
ORDER
Petitioner's April 1, 2019 Objection [Doc # 36] is OVERRULED.
The March 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation [Doc # 35] is ADOPTED.
The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 [Doc # 1] is DENIED.
Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge