Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

THERIAULT-ODOM v. MILLER, LA CV 12-04141-VBF-SS. (2014)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20140905a16 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Document ("Doc") 1), United States Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada's Order granting petitioner's request to withdraw unexhausted claims (Doc 21), respondent's Answer (Doc 29) and accompanying memorandum of points and authorities (Doc 29-1), the Report and Recommendation (
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Document ("Doc") 1), United States Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada's Order granting petitioner's request to withdraw unexhausted claims (Doc 21), respondent's Answer (Doc 29) and accompanying memorandum of points and authorities (Doc 29-1), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Parada, petitioner's objections docketed July 28, 2014 (Doc 37)1, the records on file, and the applicable law. Having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which petitioner lodged a specific objection, the Court will accept the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

(1) Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (3) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), final judgment will be entered by separate document.

FootNotes


1. Magistrate Judge Parada issued the R&R on February 26, 2014, and on February 28, 2014 petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file objections (Doc 32). On April 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Parada issued an Order (Doc 33) extending petitioner's objection deadline to May 2, 2014. On May 5, 2014, petitioner filed a second motion for an extension of time (Doc 34). The referral to Magistrate Judge Parada was terminated, and the case referred to Magistrate Judge Segal, by Order issued June 24, 2014 (Doc 35). By Order issued June 27, 2014 (Doc 36), Magistrate Judge Segal extended the objection deadline to July 11, 2014. Nonetheless, petitioner did not file any objections, or any motion for a further extension of time, by July 11, 2014. Instead, after the deadline elapsed, petitioner mailed a document entitled "This is the Response to the Attorney General[`]s Reply" (Doc 37), which the Court has treated as objections to the R&R. The Clerk of Court entered that document on July 31, 2014 with a file date of July 28, 2014.

The Court has exercised its discretion to consider petitioner's untimely objections. See, e.g., Pearson v. Reynolds Sch. Dist. No. 7, No. 3:12-CV-1146-HU, 2014 WL 715510, *26 n.1 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2014) ("Although Plaintiff's objections were untimely, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, considers them in order to ensure [that] all of the parties' arguments have been reviewed by the Court."). The Court determines that petitioner's objections fail to identify any defect of law, fact, or logic in Magistrate Judge Parada's well-reasoned R&R.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer