Opinion
No. SA CV 14-01761-VBF-AFM
02-09-2016
RALPH A. RUELAS, Petitioner, v. MUNIZ (Warden), Respondent.
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation, Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing Action With Prejudice; Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the habeas corpus petition (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent's answer and accompanying memorandum (Doc 5), the "lodged documents" filed in paper form by the respondent (listed in the Notice of Lodging at Doc 6), petitioner's reply (Doc 13), the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc 18), petitioner's objections filed January 19, 2016 (Doc 29), 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 and respondent has filed neither a response nor a request for an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits without waiting further.
"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 error of law, fact, or logic in the Magistrate Judge's R&R." Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.). Petitioner has failed to establish his entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief.
ORDER
Petitioner's objection [Doc #29] is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation [Doc #18] is ADOPTED.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate document.
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will issue as a separate document.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice and the case is TERMINATED. Dated: February 9, 2016
/s/_________
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
Senior United States District Judge