Gregory Graham v. S. Langford

Filing 21

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Christina A. Snyder for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 17 . IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (ec)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY GRAHAM,
Petitioner

12
13

v.

14

S. LANGFORD,

15

Respondent.

Case No. CV 16-1729-CAS (GJS)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

16
17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 28 U.S.C. § 2241

19

petition (“Petition”) and all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this

20

action, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

21

(“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of

23

those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated.

24

In his Objections, Petitioner asserts new facts and raises a new argument. He

25

alleges that his state term did not actually expire until December 1, 2016, when his

26

state parole term concluded, and thus, his Count 1 federal sentence continued to run

27

against that state term concurrently until December 1, 2016. Petitioner contends that

28

he should have received “credit” against his Count 1 federal sentence for the period

1

of time from his release on state parole and immediate transfer to federal custody

2

(November 8, 2013) until his state parole concluded on December 1, 2016, and thus:

3

his Count 1 federal sentence should have been deemed fully satisfied; and the only

4

sentence he should be serving in federal custody is the de-aggregated Count 3

5

sentence, which he contends commenced running on November 8, 2013, rather than

6

upon the completion of his Count 1 sentence as ordered.

7

A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or

8

arguments presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation.

9

See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell,

10

231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has exercised its discretion to

11

consider the new factual and legal assertions set forth in the Objections even though

12

they were not included (or at least not clearly) in Petitioner’s prior filings.

13

Petitioner’s assertions and arguments have been reviewed carefully. The Court,

14

however, concludes that nothing set forth in the Objections or otherwise in the

15

record for this case affects or alters, or calls into question, the analysis and

16

conclusions set forth in the Report.

17

Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and

18

recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1)

19

the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action

20

with prejudice.

21

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

22
23
24
25

DATED: July 24, 2017
_______________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2