United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS; ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION; DENYING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION;
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE; DIRECTING ENTRY OF
SEPARATE FINAL JUDGMENT; TERMINATING AND CLOSING THE ACTION
Valerie Baker Fairbank Senior United States District Judge
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the
First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254
(“FAP”) (Case Management / Electronic Case Filing
System Document (“Doc”) 17) (excluding claims
two, three, and four, which were dismissed by prior Order
issued September 18, 2015, Doc 29); the respondent
warden's answer and accompanying memorandum (Doc 40); the
relevant decision(s) of the California state courts; the
state-court “lodged documents” submitted by the
respondent in paper form (listed in the Notice of Lodging at
Doc 41); petitioner's filing entitled “Petitioner
Objection to the Respondent Motion to Dismissed With
Prejudice Herein”, construed as his traverse (Doc 49),
the 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 January 13,
2017 (Doc 51); petitioner's timely objections to the
R&R (Doc 53); and the applicable law.
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) g[ives] respondent a right
to respond to the objections, ” Ruelas v.
Muniz, No. SA CV 14-01761-VBF, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D.
Cal. Feb. 9, 2016), and that response period has not yet
elapsed. “Nonetheless, because the Court is ruling in
favor of the respondent, then respondent cannot be prejudiced
by the Court ruling without waiting for its possible response
to petitioner's objections.” John M. Adams v.
Borders, No. ED CV 16-00541-VBF-AS Doc. 18, 2016 WL
4520906, *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016); see also,
e.g., Ismail v. Ford, No. SA CV 10-00901-VBF Doc. 146,
2014 WL 1681993, *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014)
(“[T]he Fords still had until about Friday, May 2,
2014, to file a response. The Fords cannot be prejudiced by
this court ruling without waiting for their possible
response, however, because the Court today is overruling
plaintiff's objections and dismissing all claims against
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), COA denied, No. 15-56205
(9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
Court finds discussion of [the] objections to be unnecessary
on this record. The Magistrates Act ‘merely requires
the district judge to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendation to which objection is made.'” It
does not require the district judge to provide a written
explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See
MacKenzie v. California AG, SA CV 12-00432, 2016 WL
5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (Fairbank, J.)
(quoting United States ex rel. Walterspiel v. Bayer
AG, 639 F. App'x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir.)
(per curiam) (“The district court complied with this
requirement. Accordingly, we find no procedural error in the
district court's decision not to address specifically
Walterspiel's objections.”), cert. denied,
- U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 162 (2016)) (brackets & internal
quote marks omitted). “This is particularly true where,
as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.”
Smith v. California Judicial Council, No. ED CV
14-01413-VBF Doc. 93, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (CD. Cal. Oct. 17,
the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual
findings and legal conclusions and implement the Magistrate
objection [Doc #53] is OVERRULED.
Report and Recommendation [Doc #51] is ADOPTED.
U.S.C. section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate
judgment will be entered in favor of respondent consistent
with this order.
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