Opinion
C24-0241-JCC
05-10-2024
NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, Petitioner, v. JASON BENNETT, Respondent.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's objections (Dkt. No. 6) to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 5). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice for the reasons explained herein.
In an order to show cause, Judge Fricke ordered Petitioner to explain why his § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed prior to service for failure to demonstrate the exhaustion of state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2-3.) Petitioner did not respond to that order, and Judge Fricke then recommended to this Court that it dismiss this matter without prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.) Petitioner responded to the R&R with a litany of objections. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1-3.) But none of the objections address the key issue Judge Fricke raised-Petitioner's failure to demonstrate exhaustion of his state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1-3.) They are, therefore, ineffective. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing the requirements for an effective objection).
The Court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections (Dkt. No. 6), ADOPTS Judge Fricke's R&R (Dkt. No. 5), and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.