1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 _________________________________ 11 ) MATTHEW LEE MOOR, ) No. LA, CV 18-00769-VBF-DFM 12 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 13 ) v. ) Adopting Report & Recommendation: 14 ) Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; DANIEL PARAMO (Warden), ) 15 ) Directing Entry of Separate Judgment; Respondent. ) Terminating the Case (JS-6) 16 ________________________________)

17 This is a California state prisoner’s action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 18 to

. The United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”) on September 25, 2019, recommending that the habeas 20 petition be denied for lack of merit. See CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 24. The 21 accompanying Notice of Filing (Doc 23) advised the parties that they had to file any 22 objections to the R&R no later than October 15, 2019. 23 Petitioner has not objected or sought to extend the objection deadline, which 24 elapsed over one month ago, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo review 25 only of those parts of an R&R to which a party has timely objected. See Khan v. 26 Langford,

, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. 27 28 -1- 1 || Reyna Tapia,

(9" Cir. 2003) (en banc)). 2 But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that 3 || when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the R&R “for clear error 4 || on the face of the record.” Juarez,

at *2 (cite omitted); accord 5 || Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n,

(5" Cir. 1996) (en banc); 6 || Benitez v. Parmer,

(2d Cir. 2016) (“Because Benitez thus 7 || made only a general objection, the district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear 8 || error.”) (citing, inter alia, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 9 The court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc 1), the 10 || respondent government’s answer memorandum and exhibits (Docs 19 and 20), 11 || petitioner’s traverse (Doc 21), the R&R, and the applicable law. On de novo or clear- 12 || error review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. 13 || Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions 14 || and implement his recommendations. 15 16 ORDER 17 The Report and Recommendation [Doc #24] is ADOPTED. 18 The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED. 19 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 20 As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be a separate document. 21 The Court will also rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 22 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 é 45 || Dated: November 19, 2019 lei baby, asboaihe Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank 26 Senior United States District Judge 27 28 -2-