William Scott Roberts v. J. Lizarraga
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM SCOTT ROBERTS,
Case No. CV 15-5234 DOC(JC)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and supporting documents
(“Petition”) and all of the records herein, including the October 2, 2017 Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report and
Recommendation”), and petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“Objections”). The Court has further made a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.1 The
Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
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
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and
13 dismissing this action with prejudice.
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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
November 30, 2017
HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?