Filed: Mar. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS L. RAYES , District Judge . Before the Court are Petitioner John Balla Pierce's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Docs. 1, 21.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 21 at 13.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtai
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS L. RAYES , District Judge . Before the Court are Petitioner John Balla Pierce's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Docs. 1, 21.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 21 at 13.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain..
More
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, District Judge.
Before the Court are Petitioner John Balla Pierce's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Docs. 1, 21.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 21 at 13.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 13-14 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Petitioner did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R, (Doc. 21), is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case.
