Kevin Maddox v. Marion Spearman ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 ____________________________________ 11 ) KEVIN MADDOX, ) No. ED CV 16-08213-VBF-RAO 12 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER 13 ) v. ) Overruling Petitioner’s Objection and 14 ) Adopting the Report & Recommendation: ) 15 MARION SPEARMAN (Warden) ) Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition ) 16 ) Directing Entry of Separate Judgment and Respondent. ) Terminating the Case (JS-6) 17 ____________________________________ 18 The Court has reviewed the habeas corpus petition (CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 1), 19 the respondent warden’s Answer memorandum (Doc 32), petitioner’s Traverse (Doc 35), the 20 relevant state-court opinions and orders and other documents lodged by the respondent (Doc 21 17), the supplemental briefs regarding the Batson claim (Docs 46, 53, and 56), the Report and 22 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc 58), petitioner’s objection to the R&R (Doc 61), 23 petitioner’s corrected objection to the R&R (Doc 65), and the applicable law. Respondent 24 did not file a response to the objections within the time permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 25 As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of 26 the portions of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to which petitioner has specifically 27 objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court finds discussion 28 1 || of the objections to be unnecessary on this record. “The Magistrates Act ‘merely requires 2 || the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 3 || proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.’” It does not require a 4 || written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif: AG, 2016 5 | WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). “This is particularly true 6 || where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” Smith v. Calif: Jud. Council, 2016 WL 7 || 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate 8 || Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement her recommendations. 9 10 ORDER 11 Petitioner’s Corrected Objection [Doc # 65] is OVERRULED. 12 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 58] is ADOPTED. 13 The section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doce # 1] is DENIED. 14 Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as required by 15 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). 16 The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 17 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 18 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: December 9, 2019 biker (aveboaahe 22 Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank 23 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28