Filed: Dec. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 72) (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (Doc. No. 7); AND (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Petitioner Larry Hernandez's ("Petitioner") first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. No. 7.) Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (Doc. No. 15). Petitioner did
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 72) (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (Doc. No. 7); AND (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Petitioner Larry Hernandez's ("Petitioner") first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. No. 7.) Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (Doc. No. 15). Petitioner did ..
More
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 72)
(2) DENYING PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (Doc. No. 7); AND
(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Larry Hernandez's ("Petitioner") first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 7.) Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (Doc. No. 15). Petitioner did not file a traverse. The Court referred the matter to the Honorable Linda Lopez, Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. No. 72.) The parties were instructed to file written objections by April 19, 2019, and replies by May 10, 2019. (Id. at 29.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objections, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, neither party timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lopez's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lopez's R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lopez's R&R, (2) DENIES the Petition on the merits, and (3) DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.1 The Court Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
