From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacobs v. Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2016
Case No. SA CV 12-1972-VBF (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. SA CV 12-1972-VBF (JEM)

03-31-2016

DEAN ROBERT JACOBS, Petitioner, v. DAVID B. LONG, Respondent.


ORDER

Overruling Petitioner's Objections; Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action with Prejudice; Directing Entry of Separate Judgment; Terminating the Case (JS-6)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the first amended habeas corpus petition (Doc 14), the respondent government's answer and answer memorandum (Doc 23), the state-court documents lodged by the respondent in paper form (index at Doc 24), petitioner's reply (Doc 29), the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc 31), and petitioner's objections to the R&R (Doc 37), and the applicable law. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) gave respondent a right to respond to the objections, but the time to do so has elapsed and respondent has filed neither a response nor a request for an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits without waiting further." Ruelas v. Muniz, Case No. SA CV 14-01761, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Valerie Baker Fairbank, J.).

"As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the Magistrate Judge's R&R." Rael v. Foulk, Case No. LA CV 14-02987, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.), appeal filed on other grounds, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015).

ORDER

Petitioner's objection [Doc #37] is OVERRULED.

The Report and Recommendation [Doc #31] is ADOPTED.

The first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc #14] is DENIED.

The action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of respondent and against petitioner.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be entered as a separate document.

The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE the case (JS-6). DATED: Thursday, March 31, 2016

/s/_________

Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jacobs v. Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2016
Case No. SA CV 12-1972-VBF (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016)
Case details for

Jacobs v. Long

Case Details

Full title:DEAN ROBERT JACOBS, Petitioner, v. DAVID B. LONG, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 31, 2016

Citations

Case No. SA CV 12-1972-VBF (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016)