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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?