United States District Court, S.D. California
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE; (3) DENYING REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING; (4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.
[Docket No. 25]
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner Nolan Demetrius Jackson, 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 Response on May 1, 2013. (Docket No. 13). Petitioner filed a Traverse on June 3, 2013. (Docket No. 20).
On May 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 25). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due May 30, 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.
In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation. The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The request for an evidentiary hearing 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. ...