Opinion
Case No. LA CV 16-6790-VBF-LAL
07-24-2018
JORGE JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE ASUNCION (Warden), Respondent.
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections and Adopting Report & Recommendation: Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Terminating the Action (JS-6)
The Court has reviewed the amended habeas corpus petition filed February 6, 2018, CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 34; respondent's answer and lodged documents filed April 20, 2018 (Docs 43-44); petitioner's May 21, 2018 traverse (Doc 45); the Magistrate Judge's May 23, 2018 Report & Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc 47); petitioner's objections (Doc 48); and the applicable law. The respondent did not respond 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." Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
"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 the district judge to provide a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (quoting US v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App'x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)). "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 Jimenez's objection [Doc # 48] is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 47] is ADOPTED.
The First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc # 43] 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).
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). Dated: July 24, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge