Mr. Tobias White v. M. McDonald

Filing 22

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker for Report and Recommendation 20 : The Court concurs with and accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing be denied; and that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (rla)

1

i

1

q

tI

-----D---

2

FILED

3
4
5
6

ClEf[11s..'!.;~~.:..§

I HEREIlY mTIFY THAI THIS OOCU MENT WAS SERVED BY
FIRSI CLASS MAIl. POSTAGE PREPAID, TO AI:l-Ga~It5El.€..-P(.,r.h~v'"
(OR PARTIES) AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT AODRESS OF
RECORD IN IHIS ACTION ON THIS DAlE.

DAIED;

l~~.l\l..--

JUL I 22011

CENTR~L1FORNIA
BY
DEPUTY

_

OEPUIYC~1..c..5

OU-H ERN DJIVISION

-

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. CV 10-7917-JST (RNB)

TOBIAS WHITE,
Petitioner,
vs.

M. McDONALD, Warden,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUOOE

Respondent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the

18 records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States
19 Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Reconunendation have been filed by
20 petitioner, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the
21

Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.

22

In his objections, petitioner contends, with respect to each ofhis four grounds

23

for relief, that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. However, in Cullen v.

24 Pinholster, - U.S. -, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398-1401 (2011), the Supreme Court recently
25 held that, for claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, the AEDPA requires
26 federal habeas courts to evaluate the reasonableness of state court decisions on the
27 basis of the record before the state court. Under Pinholster, a federal habeas court
28

may not consider new evidence on such claims unless both the standard set forth in
1

1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the standard set forth in § 2254(e)(2) are satisfied. See id.
2

~

I

]

Here, all four grounds for relief alleged by pelilioner were adjudicated on the merits

3 by the California Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court concurs with and accepts the
4

findings of the Magistrate Judge that the standard set forth in § 2254(d) was not met

5

with respect to any of those grounds for relief.

6

The Court therefore also concurs with and accepts the recommendations ofthe

7 Magistrate Judge that petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing be denied; and
8

that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with

9 prejudice.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

DATED:

1·0& ' II

13
14
15

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27

28
2