Filed: Jun. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing the Entry of Separate Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6) VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK , Senior District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, this Court has reviewed the pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2554, CM/ECF System Document
Summary: ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing the Entry of Separate Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6) VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK , Senior District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, this Court has reviewed the pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2554, CM/ECF System Document (..
More
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing the Entry of Separate Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, this Court has reviewed the pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2554, CM/ECF System Document ("Doc") 1; respondent Lizaraga's Answer (Doc 12) and lodged documents (Doc 13); the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc 16); the timely objections constructively filed by petitioner Peate on May 22, 2019 (Doc 19); and the applicable law.
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. 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 a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation 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 # 19] is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 16] is ADOPTED.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] 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).
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
