Filed: May 05, 2016
Latest Update: May 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections, Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing Case (J-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 by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 ("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying m
Summary: ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections, Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing Case (J-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 by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 ("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying me..
More
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections, Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment;
Terminating and Closing Case (J-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 by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 ("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying memorandum (Doc 12), the relevant decision(s) of the California state courts, the state-court "lodged documents" submitted by the respondent in paper form (listed in the "Notice of Lodging" index at Doc 13), petitioner's reply (Doc 14) and supplemental reply (Doc 16), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on March 31, 2016 (Doc 19), petitioner's timely1 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, No. SA CV 14-01761, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Fairbank, J.). "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, No. LA CV 14-02987, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.), appeal filed, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015). Accordingly, the Court will accept and implement the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.
ORDER
Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.
Final judgment will be entered in favor of respondent consistent with this order.
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the judgment will be a separate document.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
