Blanco v. Johnson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 NORMAN P. BLANCO, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01088-WQH-AGS

12 ORDER Petitioner, 13 v. 14 JOHNSON, Warden, 15

16 Respondent. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF 19 No. 7) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 11). 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 21 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 23 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 24 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 25 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 26 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 27 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 28 1 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 2 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.’’). 3 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 4 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is 6 ||, ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 7) 1s 7 ||GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with 8 || prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court 9 directed to close this case. 10 |} Dated: July 22, 2021 BME: ie Z. Ma 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28