1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 _________________________________ 11 ) DAVID VELASQUEZ, ) No. LA CV 19-00504-VBF-KS 12 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 13 ) Adopting Report & Recommendation: v. ) 14 ) Denying the Habeas Petition; RAYMOND MADDEN (Warden), ) Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; 15 ) Directing Entry of Separate Judgment; Respondent. ) Terminating the Case (JS-6) 16 ________________________________)

17 Proceeding pro se, California state prisoner David Velasquez filed the petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § on January 23, 2019, CM/ECF 19 Document (“Doc”) 1, and respondent filed an Answer Memorandum and exhibits on 20 June 11, 2019 (Doc 16). The Honorable Karen L. Stevenson, United States 21 Magistrate Judge, issued a June 25, 2019 Order (Doc 25) reminding petitioner that 22 the deadline for his optional traverse was July 31, 2019, but he did not file a traverse. 23 The Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on September 24 25, 2019 (Doc 27), advising that the Court deny the habeas petition for lack of merit. 25 The Notice of Filing (Doc 26) advised the parties that they had to file any objections 26 to the R&R no later than October 16, 2019. Petitioner has not objected within the 27 28 -1- 1 || time allotted by C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.4, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 2 || requires de novo review only of those parts of an R&R to which a party has timely 3 || objected. See Khan v. Langford,

, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) 4 || (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna Tapia,

(9" Cir. 2003) (en banc)). 5 But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that 6 || when no timely objection 1s filed, the Court should review the R&R “for clear error 7 || on the face of the record.” Juarez,

at *2 (cite omitted); accord 8 || Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5" Cir. 1996) (en banc); 9 || Benitez v. Parmer,

(2d Cir. 2016) (“Because Benitez thus 10 || made only a general objection, the district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear 11 || error.”) (citing, inter alia, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 12 On de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or 13 || logic inthe R&R. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s findings 14 || and conclusions and implement her recommendations. 15 16 ORDER 17 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 27] 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 25, 2019 lei baby, asboaihe Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank 26 Senior United States District Judge 27 28 -2-