Opinion
No. 2:02-CV-0310 RRB JFM P.
December 17, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner Jon Eric Holley ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On September 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 22) herein, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Respondent Michael Yarborough ("Respondent") filed Objections to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations at Docket 24; following which Petitioner filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket 25), citing Parle v. Runnels, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2936652 (9th Cir. 2007) (granting habeas relief under AEDPA for a combination of evidentiary errors which individually and cumulatively violated due process).
Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are based in law, i.e., legal disputes, and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the same, the Court does not concur with the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations at Docket 22. Indeed, the Court finds that: (1) the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive Petitioner of his federal constitutional rights; and (2) the California Court of Appeal's decision was not objectively unreasonable. In fact, for the reasons articulated by Respondent in his Objections filed at Docket 24, the Court finds the trial court's evidentiary rulings to be entirely appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket 22) filed on September 14, 2007, are rejected;
2. Petitioner's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and
3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.