Demus Lushan Peterson v. Eric Arnold

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank Re Report and Recommendation (Issued) 15 : Petitioner's objection [Doc # 20] is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation [Doc # 15] is ADOPTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [ Doc # 1] is DENIED. The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The case SHALL BE TERMINATED (JS-6). (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

WESTERN DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

____________________________________
)
DEMUS LUSHAN PETERSON,
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
ERIC ARNOLD (Warden),
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
____________________________________

Case No. ED CV 17-00610-VBF-SHK
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner’s Objections;
Adopting the Report & Recommendation;
Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;
Directing Separate COA Ruling;
Directing Entry of Final Judgment;
Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)

19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of
20

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition") (CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 1),
21

respondent’s answer (Doc 11), the state-court documents lodged by respondent in paper form
22

(listed at Doc 12), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States
23

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on
24

December 11, 2017 (Doc 15), petitioner's objections to the R&R (Doc 20), and the applicable
25

law. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) gave respondent a right to respond to the
26

objections, but the time to do so has elapsed and respondent has filed neither a response nor
27

a request for an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits without
28

1

waiting further.” Ruelas v. Muniz, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016).

2

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

3

review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and

4

finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the . . . R&R.” Rael v. Foulk, 2015 WL 4111295,

5

*1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016). The Court

6

finds discussion of the objections unnecessary on this record. “The Magistrates Act

7

‘merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those. . . specified

8

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” It does not require a

9

written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016

10

WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (quoting US v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App’x 164,

11

168-69 (4th Cir.) (per curiam)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 162 (2016)). “This is particularly true

12

where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council, 2016 WL

13

6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate

14

Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement his recommendations.

15

ORDER

16
17

Petitioner's objection [Doc # 20] is OVERRULED.

18

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

19

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

20

The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.

21

Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as required by

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).

23

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

24

The case SHALL BE TERMINATED (JS-6).

25
26

Dated: March 7, 2018

____________________________

27

Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank

28

Senior United States District Judge