Roach v. Attorney General

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JOHN EDWARD ROACH, CASE NO. C23-5446 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending the court dismiss petitioner 15 John Edward Roach’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction, and decline to issue a 16 Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 17 A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 18 or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The statute 20 makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 21 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 22 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires 1 “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

3 Petitioner Roach has not objected to the R&R. Accordingly, Roach is not entitled 4 to have the Court review any portion of the R&R de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Therefore: 6 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 7 (2) Petitioner Roach’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. 1, is DENIED; 8 (3) This action is DISMISSED;

9 (4) The Court will NOT ISSUE a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2253(c)(2); and 11 (5) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated this 8th day of September, 2023. A 14 15 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22