Opinion
Case No. ED CV 13-01943-VBF-JC
03-30-2018
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections;
Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;
Directing the Entry of Separate Judgment;
Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("FAP"), see CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 20, and exhibits (Docs 21-23); the respondent warden's answer (Doc 32) and accompanying memorandum (Doc 32-1); petitioner's traverse (Doc 35); the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 19, 2018 (Doc 42); the objections to the R&R (Doc 44) that petitioner constructively filed, with an extension of time, on March 7, 2018, see Doc 44 at 20; and the applicable law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) gave respondent a right to respond to the objections, but the time to do so has elapsed. 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 specifically objected, and the Court 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 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.) (per curiam) ("The district court complied with this requirement. Accordingly, we find no procedural error in the district court's decision not to address specifically Walterspiel's objections."), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S. Ct. 162 (2016)) (brackets & internal quote marks 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 her recommendations.
ORDER
Petitioner's objection [Doc # 44] is OVERRULED.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc # 42] is ADOPTED.
The First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc # 20] is DENIED.
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.
Final judgment will be entered separately as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). Dated: March 30, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge