Erwin Johnny Sanchez v. Ducart

Filing 13

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell re Report and Recommendation 12 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; (2) Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and(3) The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. Additionally, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Nor is Petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing. (kh)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ERWIN JOHNNY SANCHEZ,

10

Petitioner,

11
12

v.
DUCART, Warden,

13
14

Respondent.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SA CV 14-1290 BRO (JCG)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

15
16

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

17 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has
18 made a de novo determination. No objections to the Report and Recommendation
19 have been filed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
20
21

1.

The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;

22

2.

Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action
with prejudice; and

23
24

3.

The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

25

Additionally, for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the

26 Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
27 constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v.
28 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of

1 appealability.
2

Nor is Petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster,

3 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011) (AEDPA “requires an examination of the state court4 decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to
5 the record in existence at that same time i.e., the record before the state court.”).
6
7 DATED: June 5, 2015
8
9
10
11

____________________________________
HON. BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2