United States District Court, S.D. California
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (3)DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Docket No. 23]
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner William Jeffrey Hutchings, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). Respondent filed a Answer on October 18, 2013. (Docket No. 11). Petitioner filed a traverse on December 20, 2013. (Docket No. 22).
Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 23). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due January 17, 2014. ( Id. ) Neither party filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED.R.CIV.P.72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
After a de novo review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge McCurine's Report and Recommendation. The habeas petition is DENIED. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve encouragement. See Miller-El v. ...