Castro v. Robertson

Full title: JUAN DIONICIO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. J. ROBERTSON, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 22, 2021

Case No. 8:18-cv-00867-DMG-MAA (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 8:18-cv-00867-DMG-MAA

03-22-2021

JUAN DIONICIO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. J. ROBERTSON, Respondent.

DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"), the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court also has reviewed Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court received and filed on November 12, 2020 ("Objections"). (Objs., ECF No. 21.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner specifically has objected.

Petitioner objects to portions of the factual summary in the Report and Recommendation. (Objs. 2-7; see Rep. & Recommendation, ECF No. 19, at 3-10.) However, a factual summary from a state appellate court's opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that the facts were otherwise. See Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 746 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Although Petitioner now challenges aspects of the California Court of Appeal's factual summary, he has not adduced clear and convincing evidence that this summary is incorrect. (See Objs. 2-7.)

Next, Petitioner reasserts the nine grounds for habeas relief he raised in his Petition without alleging any specific errors in the Report and Recommendation. (Objs. 7-13; see Pet., ECF No. 1, at 5-6, 14-41.) The Objections lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. (Rep. & Recommendation 14-46.) The Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the Report and Recommendation. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the Objections.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. DATED: March 22, 2021

/s/_________

DOLLY M. GEE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE