William Scott Roberts v. J. Lizarraga

Filing 46

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge David O. Carter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 42 . IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SCOTT ROBERTS,

12

Petitioner,
v.

13
14
15

J. LIZARRAGA
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-5234 DOC(JC)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

17 __________________________________
18
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of
19
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and supporting documents
20
(“Petition”) and all of the records herein, including the October 2, 2017 Report and
21
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report and
22
Recommendation”), and petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
23
(“Objections”). The Court has further made a de novo determination of those
24
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.1 The
25
Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
26
27

1

This Court, in an exercise of its discretion, declines to consider new evidence presented

28 for the first time in the Objections. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 831 (2001). The Court nonetheless notes that consideration of such
new evidence would not alter the outcome of this matter.

1 the United States Magistrate Judge and overrules the Objections. To the extent
2 petitioner complains that the Report and Recommendation failed to consider his
3 “reply”/“traverse” (Objections at 1, referencing petitioner’s October 7, 2016
4 submission [Docket No. 33] and Report and Recommendation at 2), the Court
5 notes that the document which petitioner now characterizes as his
6 “reply”/“traverse” (Docket No. 33) was filed more than two weeks before
7 respondent filed an Answer on October 25, 2016, and thus could not be responsive
8 thereto. In any event, review of the submission petitioner refers to as his
9 “reply”/“traverse” does not alter this Court’s view that the Report and
10 Recommendation is correct and that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas
11 relief.
12

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and

13 dismissing this action with prejudice.
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the

15 Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on petitioner and counsel
16 for respondent.
17
18
19

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
November 30, 2017
DATED: _________________________

20
21

________________________________________

22

HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2