United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS;
ADOPTING THE AMENDED REPORT & RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING
HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DIRECTING ENTRY OF
SEPARATE JUDGMENT; TERMINATING AND CLOSING THE CASE
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal
Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241
("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 1),
the respondent warden's answer and accompanying
memorandum (Doc 6), petitioner's traverse (Doc 12), the
original Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued
by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on
February 12, 2016 (Doc 14), petitioner's
timely objections to the original R&R (Doc 16),
the Amended Report and Recommendation issued on May 23, 2016
(Doc 17), petitioner's timely objections to the Amended
R&R (Doc 20), and the applicable law.
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) gave respondent a right to
respond to the objections, but the time to do so has elapsed
and respondent has filed neither a response nor a request for
an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the
merits without waiting further." Ruelas v.
Muniz, No. SA CV 14-01761, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal.
Feb. 9, 2016) (Fairbank, J.). "As required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo
review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has
specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or
logic in the . . . R&R." Rael v. Foulk, No. LA
CV 14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7,
2015) (Fairbank, J.), COA denied, No. LA CV 14-02987
Doc. 53, Appeal No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
Accordingly, the Court will accept and implement the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.
objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation are
OVERRULED. The Amended Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
does not need to obtain a certificate of
appealability from this Court or from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in order to appeal
will be entered consistent with this order. "As required
by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by
separate document." Toy v. Soto, 2015 WL
2168744, *1 (CD. Cal. May 5, 2015) (citing Jayne v.
Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013))
(footnote 1 omitted), appeal filed, No. 15-55866
(9th Cir. June 5, 2015).
action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
Both Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) and 28
U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) provide that a party may file
written objections to an R&R within fourteen days after being
served with the R&R. Our Local Civil Rule 72-3.3, however,
provides that "[i]f a party is in custody at the time of
the filing of the Magistrate Judge's Report, the time for
filing objections under F.R. Civ. P. 72(b) shall be shall be
twenty (20) days or such further time as the Magistrate Judge
"Consistent with the Federal Rule governing
Magistrate Judges and the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court
construes that to mean twenty calendar days after the
incarcerated party is served with the R&R, not
merely twenty days after the R&R is filed on the
docket." Crump v. CSP-Los Angeles County's
Maintenance-Plant Operations Dep't, ...