Jonathan Anthony Mendez v. People of the State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 12, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-02285
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 WESTERN DIVISION 5 6 7 JONATHAN ANTHONY MENDEZ, No. ED CV 18-2285-VBF-RAO 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. Overruling Petitioner’s Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; 10 tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS tc ira ti sn ir Do fila C fo 1 111 2 431

W ( WA a

TR r hdR ee E n C)N , o uM rtO hN a sT rG eR vO e iesM p woE enR dd Y te hn et . r ecords iD D T ne e i trs hn mm iy siii nsn cs a ag i t s n it enh g g ae t n h aH de na d tAb h Ce c ea t li as oo p sC n pi no lw igr cp i aAtu h bcs lP t eP ir o le e ant j wi u t (di .Jo i S Acn -e s; 6 ; ) d e tin U la rtn e C 11 65

r oe fq tu hi er e pd o rb ty io F ne sd o. fR th. eC Riv e. pP o. r7 t2 a( nb d)( 3 R) e, ct oh me C mo eu nr dt ah tia os n e n (“g Rag &e Rd ”i )n td oe w n ho iv co h review 17 petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in 18 the R&R. The Court finds discussion of the objections to be unnecessary on 19 this record. “The Magistrates Act ‘merely requires the district judge to make a 20 de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 21 findings or recommendation to which objection is made.’” It does not require a 22 written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. 23 Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). 24 “This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” 25 Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). 26 Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and 27 legal conclusions and implement the R&R’s recommendations. 28 1 I ORDER 2 Petitioner’s objection [Doc # 11] is OVERRULED. 3 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 10] is ADOPTED. 4 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED. 5 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as 7 | required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 8 | (9th Cir. 2013). 9 The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 10 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). p.s BE tl Cs IT IS SO ORDERED. BS n BS As 13 ge Dated: August 12, 2019 leten Liber Fawhoashe aa ” HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK SE 15 Senior United States District Judge ze Po 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28