ORDER

Adopting the Report & Recommendation: Denying Doc. #15 (Stay & Abeyance); Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on April 10, 2018. See CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 17. Petitioner has not objected within the time allotted by the Rules, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo review only of those parts of an R&R to which a party has timely objected. See Khan v. Langford, 2018 WL 1271204, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the R&R "for clear error on the face of the record." Juarez, 2016 WL 2908238 at *2 (cite omitted); accord Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); Benitez v. Parmer, 654 F. App'x 502, 503 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing, inter alia, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). On de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R's recommendations that the stay motion be denied and that the habeas petition be denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, it is ordered that:

The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 17] is ADOPTED.

Petitioner Hernandez's request for stay and abeyance [Doc #15] is DENIED.

The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be entered by separate document.

The Court will also rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.

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