Filed: Aug. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER Adopting the R & R: Denying the SAP (All Exhausted Claims in the FAP) Directing Entry of Final Judgment; Terminating the Case (JS-6) VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK , Senior District Judge . The Honorable Steven Kim, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on July 11, 2019 (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 51), and the Notice of Filing advised the parties that they had to file any objections no later than Thursday, August 1, 2019. Petitioner did not object within th
Summary: ORDER Adopting the R & R: Denying the SAP (All Exhausted Claims in the FAP) Directing Entry of Final Judgment; Terminating the Case (JS-6) VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK , Senior District Judge . The Honorable Steven Kim, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on July 11, 2019 (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 51), and the Notice of Filing advised the parties that they had to file any objections no later than Thursday, August 1, 2019. Petitioner did not object within the..
More
ORDER
Adopting the R & R: Denying the SAP (All Exhausted Claims in the FAP)
Directing Entry of Final Judgment; Terminating the Case (JS-6)
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Steven Kim, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on July 11, 2019 (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 51), and the Notice of Filing advised the parties that they had to file any objections no later than Thursday, August 1, 2019. Petitioner did not object within the time allotted by the Notice of Filing the R&R and by Local Rule 72-3.4, nor has he sought an extension of the objection deadline.
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)).
But the 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) ("Because Benitez thus made only a general objection, the district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear error.") (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. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and implement her recommendations.
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 51] is ADOPTED.
The Second Amended Petition, consisting only of the exhausted claims in the First Amended Petition [Doc # 10],1 is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order and with the R&R. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be entered as a separate document.
The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
