VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.
This is an action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Pursuant to her authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B), and C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on April 26, 2016. See Case Management/Electronic Case Filing System Document ("Doc") Doc 22.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the habeas corpus petition (Doc 1), the documents listed in respondent warden's first Notice of Lodging filed April 21, 2015 (Doc 6), the documents listed in respondent's Supplemental Notice of Lodging filed May 21, 2015 (Doc 8), the documents listed in respondent's Second Supplemental Notice of Lodging filed July 15, 2015 (Doc 13), the relevant decision(s) of the California state courts, petitioner's August 5, 2015 "Motion to Show Cause as to Why Petitioner's Instant Petition is to Be Granted" (Doc 16) and his August 31, 2015 supplement thereto (Doc 18) and respondent's reply (Doc 19), the R&R (Doc 22), and the applicable law.
Petitioner has not filed written objections to the R&R within the time allotted by our Local Civil Rule 72-3.4
By its terms, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires a District Judge to conduct de novo review only of those portions of an R&R to which a party has filed timely specific objection. See, e.g., Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.) ("As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected. . . ."), appeal filed, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015).
The Report and Recommendation
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus
Petitioner's August 5, 2015 "Motion to Show Cause Why This Petition Should be Granted"
The Court
This action is
The Clerk of Court SHALL
"Consistent with the Federal Rule governing Magistrate Judges and the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court construes that to mean twenty calendar days after the incarcerated party is served with the R&R, not merely twenty days after the R&R is filed on the docket." Crump v. CSP-Los Angeles County's Maintenance-Plant Operations Dep't, No. LA CV 15-07845, 2016 WL 1610593, *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (Valerie Baker Fairbank, Sr. J.).
"`To comply with Rule 58, an order must (1) be self-contained and separate from the opinion; (2) note the relief granted; and (3) omit or substantially omit the district court's reasons for disposing of the claims.'" Elkins v. Foulkes, 2014 WL 2615732, *14 n.4 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2014) (quoting Daley v. USAO, 538 F. App'x 142, 143 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citation omitted)). "`A combined document denominated an Order and Judgment, containing factual background, legal reasoning, as well as a judgment, generally will not satisfy the rule's prescription.'" Fisher v. Ventura Cty. Sheriffs Narcotics Agency, 2014 WL 2772705, *7 n.9 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2014) (quoting In re Taumoepeau, 523 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2008)) (internal quote marks omitted).