Rianne Celine Theriault Odom v. W Miller

Filing 39

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (3) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), final judgment will be entered by separate document. (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RIANNE CELINE THERIAULT
11 ODOM,
12

v.

13

Petitioner,

14 W. MILLER, Warden,
15

Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. LA CV 12-04141-VBF-SS
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the petition for a writ of

18 habeas corpus (Document (“Doc”) 1), United States Magistrate Judge Oswald
19 Parada’s Order granting petitioner’s request to withdraw unexhausted claims (Doc
20 21), respondent’s Answer (Doc 29) and accompanying memorandum of points and
21 authorities (Doc 29-1), the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
22 Judge Parada, petitioner’s objections docketed July 28, 2014 (Doc 37)1, the records
23
24
25

1

Magistrate Judge Parada issued the R&R on February 26, 2014, and on
26 February 28, 2014 petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file
objections (Doc 32). On April 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Parada issued an Order
27
(Doc 33) extending petitioner’s objection deadline to May 2, 2014. On May 5, 2014,
28 petitioner filed a second motion for an extension of time (Doc 34). The referral to

1 on file, and the applicable law. Having conducted a de novo review of those portions
2 of the R&R to which petitioner lodged a specific objection, the Court will accept the
3 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
4

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

5

(1)

Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

6

(2)

The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.

7

(3)

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

8

(4)

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9

As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), final judgment will be

10 entered by separate document.
11
12
13 DATED: September 3, 2014
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate Judge Parada was terminated, and the case referred to Magistrate Judge
Segal, by Order issued June 24, 2014 (Doc 35). By Order issued June 27, 2014 (Doc
36), Magistrate Judge Segal extended the objection deadline to July 11, 2014.
Nonetheless, petitioner did not file any objections, or any motion for a further
extension of time, by July 11, 2014. Instead, after the deadline elapsed, petitioner
mailed a document entitled “This is the Response to the Attorney General[’]s Reply”
(Doc 37), which the Court has treated as objections to the R&R. The Clerk of Court
entered that document on July 31, 2014 with a file date of July 28, 2014.

22

27

The Court has exercised its discretion to consider petitioner’s untimely
objections. See, e.g., Pearson v. Reynolds Sch. Dist. No. 7, No. 3:12-CV-1146-HU,
2014 WL 715510, *26 n.1 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2014) (“Although Plaintiff’s objections
were untimely, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, considers them in order to
ensure [that] all of the parties’ arguments have been reviewed by the Court.”). The
Court determines that petitioner’s objections fail to identify any defect of law, fact,
or logic in Magistrate Judge Parada’s well-reasoned R&R.

28

2

23
24
25
26