Clarence Zimmerman v. Fredrick Foulk
Filing
41
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge R. Gary Klausner for Report and Recommendation (Final) 40 . (mrgo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CLARENCE ZIMMERMAN,
12
Petitioner,
v.
13
14
FREDRICK FOULK, Warden,
Respondent.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-8597-RGK (KK)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
17
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition
18
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and both the original and final Report
19
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged
20
in a de novo review of those portions of the original Report to which Petitioner has
21
objected. The Court accepts the Final Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
22
Judge.
23
In his objections to the original Report, Petitioner also requests an evidentiary
24
hearing. However, in habeas proceedings, “an evidentiary hearing is not required on
25
issues that can be resolved by reference to the state court record.” Totten v. Merkle,
26
137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1173
27
(9th Cir. 2005). “It is axiomatic that when issues can be resolved with reference to the
28
state court record, an evidentiary hearing becomes nothing more than a futile exercise.”
1
Totten, 137 F.3d at 1176. Here, the Magistrate Judge concluded all of Petitioner’s
2
claims could be resolved by reference to the state court record. Accordingly, the Court
3
denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing.
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) denying the First
5
Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (2) dismissing this action with
6
prejudice.
7
8
9
10
11
Dated: June 2, 2015
_______________________________
HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
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?