Kevin Maddox v. Marion Spearman

Opinion

____________________________________ ) KEVIN MADDOX, ) No. ED CV 16-08213-VBF-RAO ) Petitioner, ) ORDER ) v. ) Overruling Petitioner’s Objection and ) Adopting the Report & Recommendation: ) MARION SPEARMAN (Warden) ) Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition ) ) Directing Entry of Separate Judgment and Respondent. ) Terminating the Case (JS-6) ____________________________________ The Court has reviewed the habeas corpus petition (CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 1), the respondent warden’s Answer memorandum (Doc 32), petitioner’s Traverse (Doc 35), the relevant state-court opinions and orders and other documents lodged by the respondent (Doc 17), the supplemental briefs regarding the Batson claim (Docs 46, 53, and 56), the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc 58), petitioner’s objection to the R&R (Doc 61), petitioner’s corrected objection to the R&R (Doc 65), and the applicable law. Respondent did not file a response to the objections within the time permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court finds discussion 1 of the objections to be unnecessary on this record. “The Magistrates Act ‘merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.’” It does not require a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif: AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). “This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” Smith v. Calif: Jud. Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement her recommendations. Petitioner’s Corrected Objection [Doc # 65] is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 58] is ADOPTED. The section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doce # 1] is DENIED. 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). The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). Dated: December 9, 2019 biker (aveboaahe Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank Senior United States District Judge