ORDER
Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Issuance of Separate COA Ruling; Directing Entry of a Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing the Action (JS-6)
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying memorandum (Doc 10), the relevant decision(s) of the California state courts, the state-court "lodged documents" submitted by the respondent in paper form (listed in the index at Doc 11), petitioner's reply (Doc 18), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on October 6, 2017 (Doc 20), petitioner's objections to the R&R (Doc 26), and the applicable law.
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) g[ives] respondent a right to respond to the objections," Ruelas v. Muniz, No. SA CV 14-01761-VBF, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016), and that response period has not yet elapsed. "`Nonetheless, because the Court is ruling in favor of the respondent, then respondent cannot be prejudiced by the Court ruling without waiting for its possible response to petitioner's objections.'" Hicks v. Gipson, 2017 WL (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017) (quoting Adams v. Borders, 2016 WL 4520906, *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)); see also Ismail v. Ford, 2014 WL 1681993, *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014).
"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 and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the . . . R&R." Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
"The Court finds discussion of [the] objections to be unnecessary on this record. The Magistrates Act `merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.'" It does not require the district judge to provide a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. California AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (Fairbank, J.) (quoting US v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App'x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) ("The district court complied with this requirement. Accordingly, we find no procedural error in the district court's decision not to address specifically Walterspiel's objections."), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 162 (2016)) (brackets & internal quotation marks omitted). "This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing." Smith v. California Judicial Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement his recommendations.
ORDER
Petitioner's objection [Doc # 26] is OVERRULED.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc # 20] is ADOPTED.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.
The Court will contemporaneously rule on a certificate of appealability. See Henderson v. United States, 2015 WL 66509, *2 (D. Idaho Jan. 5, 2015) (Winmill, C.J.). The COA ruling will be made by separate order. See, e.g., Roybal v. Davis, 148 F.Supp.2d 958, 1125 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
Final judgment will be entered consistent with this order. "As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate document." Toy v. Soto, 2015 WL 2168744, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) (citing Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013)) (n. 1 omitted), COA denied, No. 15-55866 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016).
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
