ORDER

Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation;

Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;

Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Separate COA Ruling; Directing Entry of Final Judgment;

Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), respondent's answer (Doc 11), the state-court documents lodged by respondent in paper form (listed at Doc 12), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on December 11, 2017 (Doc 15), petitioner's objections to the R&R (Doc 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 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." Ruelas v. Muniz, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016).

"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." Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016). The Court finds discussion of the objections unnecessary on this record. "The Magistrates Act `merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those. . . specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'" It does not require a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. 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)), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 162 (2016)). "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 his recommendations.

ORDER

Petitioner's objection [Doc # 20] is OVERRULED.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc # 15] is ADOPTED.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.

The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.

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).

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The case SHALL BE TERMINATED (JS-6).