Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (" R&R") written by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. Doc. 17. The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (" R&R") written by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. Doc. 17. The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72..
More
ORDER
RANER C. COLLINS, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (" R&R") written by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. Doc. 17.
The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). However, in the absence of a timely objection, 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 Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
No objections have been filed with this Court. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Rateau's R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Doc. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Accelerated Review of Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied as moot. Doc. 16.
