UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 14, 2012
WALTER CLAUDIUS LEMONS,
A. HEDGPETH, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 13]
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) advising the Court to deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Objections were originally due September 30, 2011, but the Court granted an extension until November 11, 2011. However, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo's report and recommendation. Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bencivengo's report and recommendation and (2) DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.