1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON HURTADO, Case No.: 21cv1386-CAB-AGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 20] AND GRANTING MOTION TO 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, et al., DISMISS THE PETITION [Doc. No. 15 Respondent. 18] 16 17 On August 2, 2021, Petitioner Ramon Hurtado (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On November 1, 2021, Petitioner filed an 20 Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 8.] On February 18, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to 21 dismiss the petition and lodged the state court record. [Doc. Nos. 18, 19.] Petitioner did 22 not file an opposition. 23 On August 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report and 24 Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss 25 the Petition. [Doc. No. 20.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed 26 by August 25, 2022. [Report at 3.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there 27 been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. 28 1 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 2 ||recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 3 || Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 4 || filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 5 ||recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 6 || Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 7 ||“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 8 || the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 9 || must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 10 made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th 11 || Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 12 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 13 || parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. 14 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 15 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 16 || Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report and 17 ||Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, 18 || which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the 19 || Petition. [Doc. No. 18.] 20 Moreover, because the Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would find the 21 || Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong it DECLINES to 22 |/issue a Certificate of Appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 2, 2022 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28