Opinion
Case No. LA CV 15-7122 SJO (JCG)
09-22-2016
RUHANI BUSTAMANTE, Petitioner, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Petitioner's Objections to the R&R, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
Petitioner's Objections reiterate the arguments made in the Petition, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the R&R.
Accordingly, 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;
3. All pending motions are denied as moot and terminated; and
4. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether": (1) "the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right"; and (2) "the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Nor is Petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011) (AEDPA "requires an examination of the state court-decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time i.e., the record before the state court."). DATED: September 22, 2016.
/s/_________
HON. S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE