United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT
OBJECTION; DENYING PET.'S REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING; DENYING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; DIRECTING ENTRY
OF SEPARATE FINAL JUDGMENT; TERMINATING AND CLOSING THE CASE
Valerie Baker Fairbank Senior United States District Judge
an action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Pursuant to his
authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C.
section 636(b)(1)(B), and CD. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3,
the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") on March 22, 2016.
See Case Management / Electronic Case Filing System
Document ("Doc") Doc 42.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the
habeas corpus petition (Doc 1), the respondent warden's
answer and accompanying memorandum (Doc 35), the relevant
decision(s) of the California state courts, the other
state-court "lodged documents" submitted by the
respondent in paper form (listed in the Notice of Lodging at
Doc 36), petitioner's traverse (Doc 38), the Magistrate
Judge's R&R (Doc 42), and the applicable law.
has not filed written objections to the R&R within the time
allotted by our Local Civil Rule 72-3.4, nor has he
sought an extension of the objection deadline. Accordingly,
the Court proceeds to the issues without waiting further.
terms, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires a
District Judge to conduct de novo review only of those
portions of an R&R to which a party has filed timely specific
objection. See, e.g., Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV
14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (CD. Cal. July 7, 2015)
(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 . . .
."), COA denied, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 53,
Appeal No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
the Ninth Circuit has held that absent a timely objection
purporting to identify specific defects in the R&R, the
District Judge has no obligation to review the R&R at all.
See Beard v. Nooth, 2013 WL 3934188, *1 (D. Or. July
30, 2013) ("For those portions of a magistrate's
findings and recommendations to which neither party has
objected, the [Federal Magistrates] Act does not prescribe
any standard of review.") (citing Thomas v. Am,
474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S.Ct. 466, 473 (1985) ("There is
no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Federal
Magistrates Act], intended to require a district judge to
review amagistrate's report.[.]") and United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9thCir. 2003) (en banc) (district judge must
review a magistrate's findings and recommendations de
novo if objections are made, "but not otherwise"));
see, e.g., Herring v. Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office, 2016 WL 2754851, *1 (D. Ariz. May 12, 2016)
(Campbell, J.) ("No objection has been filed, which
relieves the Court of its obligation to review the
R&R.") (citing, inter alia, Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d at 1121, and Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149);
Hussak v. Ryan, 2016 WL 2606993, *1 (D. Ariz. May 6,
2016) (Rayes, J.) (same).
the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district
judge from reviewing an R&R to make sure that it recommends a
legally permissible and appropriate outcome (based on sound
reasoning and valid precedent) if she chooses to do so."
Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 2908238, *2 (CD. Cal.
May 17, 2016) (Fairbank, J.) (citing Beard, 2013 WL
3934188 at *1 (although in the absence of objections no
review is required, the Magistrates Act '"does not
preclude further review by the district judge sua
sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard") (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154)).
'"Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R
Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is
filed, the Court review the magistrate's recommendations
for clear error on the face of the record.'"
Juarez, 2016 WL 2908238 at *2 (quoting
Beard, 2013 WL 3934188 at *1 (internal quotation
an abundance of caution, then, the Court has reviewed the
R&R. On either clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds
no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. Therefore the
Court will adopt the R&R and implement its recommendations.
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED without objection.
request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate
judgment will be issued 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))