Filed: Sep. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 16, and Petitioner Gerald Complita's ("Complita") objections to the R&R, Dkt. 17. On July 9, 2019, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court dismiss Complita's petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. 16. On July 22, 2019, Complita fil
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 16, and Petitioner Gerald Complita's ("Complita") objections to the R&R, Dkt. 17. On July 9, 2019, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court dismiss Complita's petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. 16. On July 22, 2019, Complita file..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 16, and Petitioner Gerald Complita's ("Complita") objections to the R&R, Dkt. 17.
On July 9, 2019, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court dismiss Complita's petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. 16. On July 22, 2019, Complita filed objections. Dkt. 17.
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, Complita contests the well-settled and binding precedent that he must exhaust his state court remedies before seeking relief in a federal habeas petition. Dkt. 17. Complita's argument do not persuade the Court to carve out an exception to "one of the pillars of federal habeas corpus jurisprudence." Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 134 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Complita's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;
(2) Complita's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(3) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and
(4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.
