Filed: Jun. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. Doc. 13 at p. 8. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. Doc. 13 at p. 8. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R...
More
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. Doc. 13 at p. 8. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.
2. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed.
3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
4. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
