Aslanyan v. Herzog

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 16 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Edo Aslanyan by Judge James L. Robart. (MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

EDO ASLANYAN,
Petitioner,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE

ROBERT HERZOG,
Respondent.

14
15
16

CASE NO. C14-0511JLR

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United

17 States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue (R&R (Dkt. # 15)), and Petitioner Edo
18 Aslanyan’s objections thereto (Obj. (Dkt. # 16)). Having carefully reviewed all of the
19 foregoing, along with all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court
20 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Mr. Aslanyan’s amended petition
21 for a writ of habeas corpus (Am. Pet. (Dkt. # 13)) and DISMISSES this action with
22 prejudice.
ORDER- 1

1
2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

3 recommendation on dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge
4 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
5 properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
6 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
7 § 636(b)(1). The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation
8 to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
9 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge
10 must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is
11 made, but not otherwise.” Id. When no objections are filed, the court need not review de
12 novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th
13 Cir. 2005).
14
15

III.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Aslanyan raises five objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See

16 generally Obj.) First, he asserts that the Magistrate Judge should have ordered an
17 evidentiary hearing with respect to certain inaccuracies or omissions in the translation of
18 a witness’s testimony on cross-examination at his trial. (Id. at 1-2.) Second, he objects to
19 the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to
20 object to the prosecutor’s use of anti-Semitic language and race. (Id. at 2-3.) Next, Mr.
21 Aslanyan objects to the Magistrate Judge’s rejection of his ineffective assistance of
22 counsel claim. (Id. at 3.) He also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s rejection of his claim
ORDER- 2

1 that errors in the translation of the cross-examination of one witness violated his Sixth
2 Amendment right to meaningfully confront this witness. (Id.) Finally, Mr. Aslanyan
3 objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Mr. Aslanyan is not entitled to a
4 certificate of appealability. (Id. at 4.)
5

With the exception of Mr. Aslanyan’s objection to Magistrate Judge Donohue’s

6 conclusion that Mr. Aslanyan is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, all of Mr.
7 Aslanyan’s objections simply rehash arguments contained in his amended opening
8 memorandum (Dkt. # 14) or in his reply memorandum (Dkt. # 10). None of Mr.
9 Aslanyan’s objections raise any novel issues that were not addressed by Magistrate Judge
10 Donohue’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined
11 the record before it and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of that
12 record. With the exception of the certificate of appealability issue, Mr. Aslanyan
13 essentially reasserts the same arguments he made to Magistrate Judge Donohue, and the
14 court independently rejects those arguments for the same reasons as Magistrate Judge
15 Donohue. Further, the court concurs with Magistrate Judge Donohue that Mr. Aslanyan
16 is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he has not made “a substantial
17 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
18

IV.

CONCLUSION

19

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

20

(1) The court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Donohue’s Report and Recommendation

21 (Dkt. # 15) in its entirety;
22
ORDER- 3

1

(2) The court DENIES Mr. Aslanyan’s amended petition for a writ of habeas

2 corpus (Dkt. # 13).
3

(3) The court DISMISSES Mr. Aslanyan’s amended petition and this action with

4 prejudice;
5

(4) In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

6 Untied States District Courts, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability with respect
7 to all grounds for relief asserted in this federal habeas action; and
8

(4) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to all counsel of

9 record and to Magistrate Judge Donohue.
10

Dated this 17th day of December, 2014.

11

13

A

14

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 4