ORDER

Adopting the Report & Recommendation;

Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;

Directing Separate Final Judgment; Directing Entry of Separate COA Order; Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)

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. § 2254. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on January 31, 2018. See Document ("Doc") Doc 24. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the habeas petition (Doc 1), respondent's answer (Doc 17), decisions of the state courts, petitioner's traverse (Doc 21), Judge Standish's R&R (Doc 24), and the applicable law. Petitioner has not filed objections within the time allotted by Local Civil Rule 72-3.4. 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 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Conversely, absent timely objection purporting to identify specific defects in the R&R, the District Judge has no obligation to review the R&R at all. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (en banc); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S.Ct. 466, 473 (1985). "Nonetheless, the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district judge from reviewing an R&R to make sure that it recommends a legally permissible and appropriate outcome (based on sound reasoning and valid precedent) if she chooses to do so." Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 2908238, *2 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) (citations omitted). "`Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is filed, the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for clear error on the face of the record.'" Id. at 2 (citation omitted). On clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R.

ORDER

The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 24] is ADOPTED.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.

The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate document.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).