Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER STEVEN P. LOGAN , District Judge . Petitioner Michael Jones has filed an amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 15). The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 30), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of
Summary: ORDER STEVEN P. LOGAN , District Judge . Petitioner Michael Jones has filed an amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 15). The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 30), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of t..
More
ORDER
STEVEN P. LOGAN, District Judge.
Petitioner Michael Jones has filed an amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15). The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 30), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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 15-16 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). On September 19, 2018, this Court advised Petitioner that he had fourteen (14) days from the date of the Court's Order to file objections to the R&R (Doc. 31).
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 adopt 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."). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Magistrate Judge Fine's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) is accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15) is denied and dismissed with prejudice;
3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and
4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
