1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL C. FRANDO, Case No.: 21-CV-1434 JLS (KSC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS 14 BILL GORE; and XAVIER BECERRA, CORPUS; AND (3) DECLINING TO 15 Respondents. ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 15) 18 19 Petitioner Daniel Frando, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ 20 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The case was referred to 21 United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a report and recommendation 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). Respondents filed an 23 Answer. ECF No. 13. Petitioner did not file a traverse. See generally Docket. On January 24 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation, 25 recommending that this Court deny the Petition. ECF No. 15 (“R&R”). Petitioner has not 26 filed any objections. See generally Docket. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 28 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 1 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 2 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 4 States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 5 617 (9th Cir.1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 6 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the report 7 and recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. 8 U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 9 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 10 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 11 (emphasis in original)). 12 Here, Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than 13 February 21, 2022. R&R at 18. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for 14 doing so has expired. See generally Docket. Having reviewed the report and 15 recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear 16 error. In the absence of objections, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s 17 report and recommendation and (2) DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus. 19 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district 20 court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability 21 in its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A 22 certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a substantial showing of the denial 23 of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must 24 show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved 25 in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement 26 to proceed further. Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. 27 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Report and 28 Recommendation and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been 1 || met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. This Order concludes 2 || the litigation in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 11, 2022 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28