Opinion
No. LA CV 16-02619-VBF-LAL
05-17-2018
JESUS HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RAYMOND MADDEN, Respondent.
ORDER
Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)
This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. As authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 72-3.3, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on January 9, 2018, Document ("Doc") 23. Per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the petition (Doc 1), answer (Docs 12-13), traverse (Docs 16-17), R&R (Doc 23), and applicable law. Petitioner has not objected within the time allotted by Local Rule 72-3.4, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) "requires . . . de novo review only of those portions of an R&R to which a party has filed timely specific objection." Khan v. Langford, 2018 WL 1271204, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).
"[A]bsent a timely objection purporting to identify specific defects in the R&R, the District Judge has no obligation to review the R&R at all." Vargas v. Spearman, 2018 WL 2094341, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2018) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121, and Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985)). "Nonetheless, the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district judge from reviewing an R&R to make sure that it recommends a legally permissible and appropriate outcome (based on sound reasoning and valid precedent) . . . ." Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 2908238, *2 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) (citing, inter alia, Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154). "Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is filed, the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for clear error on the face of the record." Juarez, 2016 WL 2908238 at *2 (citation omitted).
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the R&R. On either clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. Therefore the Court will adopt the R&R and implement its recommendations.
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 23] is ADOPTED.
The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). Dated: May 17, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge