Opinion
CASE NO. 05-CV-1534 — IEG (RBB).
January 24, 2007
ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 1]
On August 1, 2005, Mario Arron Newsome ("petitioner"), a state inmate proceeding by and through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner, in his petition, claims that: (1) the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by allowing the use of the detective's prior reports to impeach witnesses' failure to recall conversations; (2) his conviction was obtained through juror misconduct because three jurors considered out-of-court evidence; (3) the prosecution knowingly introduced perjured testimony as evidenced by inconsistencies in a witness's testimony at the first trial and the retrial; (4) the prosecution's investigator perjured himself at the retrial; (5) the trial court violated his due process rights by refusing to dismiss the case because the police destroyed evidence following the first trial; (6) the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on felony murder; (7) the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by allowing a witness to introduce statements from a police report regardless of another witness's failure to recall the statements; (8) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On August 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Court deny the petition. The court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge's Report, and there being no objections filed to the Report, ADOPTS the report and recommendation in full and DENIES the petition for habeas corpus with prejudice. Per the Report, the Clerk of Court shall modify the docket in this case to REMOVE Bill Lockyer from the case, as there is no basis for petitioner to have named the California Attorney General as a respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.