ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DISMISSING KAMALA HARRIS AS RESPONDENT;

(3) DENYING REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; and

(4) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Petitioner Daniel William May, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action with the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). Following briefing, including a traverse filed by Petitioner, on September 25, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 20). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by October 14, 2015. (Id.) No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections. However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Petition is DENIED and the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Additionally, as the parties agree, Kamala Harris is DISMISSED.

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment DENYING the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.