Williams v. Small et al
Filing
23
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) denying Request for Evidentiary Hearing; (3) denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denying certificate of appealability: This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/11/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KAWAN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
12
13
CASE NO. 09-CV-1426 JLS (WMC)
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING;
(3) DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND
(4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
vs.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LARRY SMALL, EDMUND G. BROWN,
JR.,
(ECF No. 22)
Respondents.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Kawan Williams’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
and request for evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 1.) Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge William
McCurrine’s report and recommendation advising the Court to deny Petitioner’s request for
evidentiary hearing and deny his petition (R&R, ECF No. 22).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s
duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court must
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980);
United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely
objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
-1-
09cv1426
1
order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell
2
v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
3
Here, Petitioner failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge McCurrine’s report and
4
recommendation. Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough,
5
well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
6
McCurrine’s report and recommendation, (2) DENIES Petitioner’s request for evidentiary hearing,
7
and (3) DENIES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
8
This Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability should
9
issue in this matter. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial
10
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this
11
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of
12
his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
13
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack
14
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of appealability
15
indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should not issue.
16
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
17
Petitioner requests relief from his conviction for three counts of first degree robbery and one
18
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree
19
with this Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Petitioner challenges two of the trial
20
court’s evidentiary rulings, but he fails to establish that admission of the challenged evidence “fatally
21
infected [his] trial” by rendering it fundamentally unfair. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897
22
(9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). And viewing the evidence in the light most
23
favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found Petitioner guilty of being a felon
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
-2-
09cv1426
1
in possession of a firearm. Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1275 (9th Cir. 2005). Resolution of these
2
claims was not a close question. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
3
This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
8
DATED: July 11, 2011
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
09cv1426
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?