ORDER

Adopting Report & Recommendation: Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;

Directing Entry of Separate Judgment; Terminating the Case (JS-6)

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.

This is a California state prisoner's action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. The United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on September 25, 2019, recommending that the habeas petition be denied for lack of merit. See CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 24. The accompanying Notice of Filing (Doc 23) advised the parties that they had to file any objections to the R&R no later than October 15, 2019.

Petitioner has not objected or sought to extend the objection deadline, which elapsed over one month ago, 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)).

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)).

The court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc 1), the respondent government's answer memorandum and exhibits (Docs 19 and 20), petitioner's traverse (Doc 21), the R&R, and the applicable law. 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 his recommendations.

ORDER

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

The 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 a separate document.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.