ORDER

DOUGLAS L. RAYES, District Judge.

Before the Court are Petitioner Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns' Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Docs. 1, 16.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 16 at 5.) 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. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner 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 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 that Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R, (Doc. 16), is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case.