Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher

C.D. California

Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher

DecidedAugust 7, 2019

Docket8:18-cv-02044

StatusUnknown

This text of Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher (Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 No. SA CV 18-02044-VBF-JDE 10 GUSTAVO D. MONROY, ORDER 11 Petitioner, Adopting the R&R: 12 v, Directing Entry of ludemont 13 R. FISHER, Junior (Warden), Terminating the Case 5-6) 14 Respondent. 15 16 The Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) on April 23, 2019. See CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 13. Petitioner has 18 not objected within the time allotted by Local Rule 72-3.4, and Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo review only of those parts of an R&R to which a 20 party has timely objected. See Khan v. Langford, 2018 WL 1271204, *1 (C.D. Cal. 21 Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 22 2003) (en banc)). But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 23 recommend that when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the 24 R&R “for clear error on the face of the record.” Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 25 2908238 at *2 (cite omitted); accord Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 26 F.3d 1415, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); Benitez v. Parmer, 654 F. App’x 502, 27 503 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Because Benitez thus made only a general objection, the 28

1 district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear error.’’) (citing, inter alia, Adv. 2 Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 3 On de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, 4 fact, or logic in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate 5 Judge’s findings and conclusions and implement the R&R’s recommendations. 7 ORDER 8 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 13] is ADOPTED. 9 The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED. 10 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1] As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be a separate document. 12 The Court will also rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 13 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: August 7, 2019 . 7 Vbeuz Leber, (atrhoaite | LON, ROBE ENON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 No. SA CV 18-02044-VBF-JDE 10 GUSTAVO D. MONROY, ORDER 11 Petitioner, Adopting the R&R: 12 v, Directing Entry of ludemont 13 R. FISHER, Junior (Warden), Terminating the Case 5-6) 14 Respondent. 15 16 The Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) on April 23, 2019. See CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 13. Petitioner has 18 not objected within the time allotted by Local Rule 72-3.4, and Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo review only of those parts of an R&R to which a 20 party has timely objected. See Khan v. Langford, 2018 WL 1271204, *1 (C.D. Cal. 21 Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 22 2003) (en banc)). But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 23 recommend that when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the 24 R&R “for clear error on the face of the record.” Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 25 2908238 at *2 (cite omitted); accord Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 26 F.3d 1415, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); Benitez v. Parmer, 654 F. App’x 502, 27 503 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Because Benitez thus made only a general objection, the 28

1 district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear error.’’) (citing, inter alia, Adv. 2 Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 3 On de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, 4 fact, or logic in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate 5 Judge’s findings and conclusions and implement the R&R’s recommendations. 7 ORDER 8 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 13] is ADOPTED. 9 The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED. 10 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1] As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be a separate document. 12 The Court will also rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 13 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: August 7, 2019 . 7 Vbeuz Leber, (atrhoaite | LON, ROBE ENON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gustavo D. Monroy v. R. Fisher, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustavo-d-monroy-v-r-fisher-cacd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack