1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 _________________________________ 11 ) AARON GUARDADO, ) No. SA CV 19-01302-VBF-RAO 12 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER 13 ) v. ) Adopting the R & R: 14 ) Dismissing the Action Without ) Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution 15 NEIL MCDOWELL (Warden), ) ) Directing Entry of Separate Judgment; 16 Respondent. ) Terminating the case (JS-6) ________________________________) 17 18 This is a California state prisoner’s action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 to

. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R”) on September 17, 2019, recommending that the Court 21 dismiss the action without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute this action 22 with reasonable diligence. See CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 12. The accompanying 23 Notice of Filing (Doc 11) advised the parties that they had to file any objections to 24 the R&R no later than October 7, 2019. 25 Neither party has filed objections, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo 26 review only of those parts of an R&R to which a party has timely objected. See Khan 27 28 -1- 1 || v. Langford,

, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US 2 || v. Reyna Tapia,

(9" Cir. 2003) (en banc)). 3 But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that 4 || when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the R&R “for clear error 5 || on the face of the record.” Juarez,

at *2 (cite omitted); accord 6 || Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5" Cir. 1996) (en banc); 7 || Benitez v. Parmer,

(2d Cir. 2016) (“Because Benitez thus 8 || made only a general objection, the district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear 9 || error.”) (citing, inter alia, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 10 Whether on de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, 11 || fact, or logic in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s 12 || findings and conclusions and implement her recommendation. 13 14 ORDER 15 The Report and Recommendation [Doc #12] is ADOPTED. 16 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DISMISSED without 17 || prejudice due to petitioner’s lack of prosecution. 18 Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance [Doc #4] is DENIED as moot. 19 Respondent’s motion to dismiss claims two and three with prejudice as 20 || untimely and proceed only on claim one [Doc #8] is DENIED as moot. 21 As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be a separate document. 22 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 é 45 || Dated: November 14, 2019 lei baby, asboaihe Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank 26 Senior United States District Judge 27 28 -2-