Bloodsaw v. T. Ochoa

Full title: DEMETRIUS BLOODSAW, Petitioner, v. T. OCHOA, Warden, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Mar 18, 2011

CV 10-4366 GHK (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011)

Opinion

DEMETRIUS BLOODSAW, Petitioner, v. T. OCHOA, Warden, Respondent. No. CV 10-4366 GHK (JCG) United States District Court, C.D. California. March 18, 2011

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          GEORGE H. KING, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition ("Petition"), the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.

         Petitioner's Objections parrot and rehash the arguments made in the Petition and Reply, and Petitioner's attempts to distinguish Swarthout v. Cooke , 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011) lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.

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