Bruce L. Porter v. Raymond Madden

Filing 17

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice. (See document for further details. re Report and Recommendation (Issued), 15 . (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

WESTERN DIVISION

10
11

______________________________________

12

BRUCE LLEWELLYN PORTER,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
RAYMOND MADDEN,
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
)
_______________________________________

Case No. LA CV 17-01429-VBF-SK
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner’s Objections;
Adopting Report & Recommendation;
Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;
Directing Separate COA Ruling;
Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment;
Terminating and Closing the Action (JS-6)

20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court has reviewed the Petition
21
for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254
22
("petition") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc”) 1), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying
23
memorandum (Doc 2), the relevant decision(s) of the California state courts, the state-court "lodged
24
documents" submitted by the respondent in paper form (listed in the index at Doc 12), petitioner's
25
traverse (Doc 13), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate
26
Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on July 13, 2017 (Doc 15),
27
petitioner's August 11, 2017 objections to the R&R (Doc 16), and the applicable law. The time for
28

1

the respondent warden to respond to the objections elapsed several weeks ago, and the respondent

2

has neither filed a response nor sought an extension of time in which to do so.

3

“As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the

4

portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact,

5

or logic in the . . . R&R.” Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA

6

denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).

7

“The Court finds discussion of [the] objections to be unnecessary on this record. The

8

Magistrates Act ‘merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions

9

of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.’” It

10

does not require the district judge to provide a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting

11

objections. See MacKenzie v. California AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016)

12

(Fairbank, J.) (quoting US ex rel. Walterspiel v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App’x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir.) (per

13

curiam) (“The district court complied with this requirement. Accordingly, we find no procedural

14

error in the district court’s decision not to address specifically Walterspiel’s objections.”), cert.

15

denied, – U.S. –, 137 S. Ct. 162 (2016)) (brackets & internal quote marks omitted). “This is

16

particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” Smith v. California Judicial

17

Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016).

18
19

Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and
implement his recommendations.

20
21

ORDER

22

Petitioner's objection [Doc # 16] is OVERRULED.

23

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc # 15] is ADOPTED.

24

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED.

25
26

The Court will contemporaneously rule on a certificate of appealability. See Henderson

27

v. United States, 2015 WL 66509, *2 (D. Idaho Jan. 5, 2015) (Winmill, C.J.). The COA ruling will

28

be made by separate order. See, e.g., Roybal v. Davis, 148 F. Supp.2d 958, 1125 (S.D. Cal. 2015).

1
2

Final judgment will be entered consistent with this order and with the R&R.

3

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be separate document.

4
5

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

6

The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).

7
8

Dated: September 15, 2017

_______________________________

9

Valerie Baker Fairbank

10

Senior United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28