Opinion
Case No. 5:19-cv-01884-DOC-MAA
05-21-2020
ARMANDO SOTELO PASCACIO, Petitioner, v. ROSEMARY NDOH, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 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 March 30, 2020 ("Objections"). (Objs., ECF No. 24; see also ECF No. 26, at 1 (construing this filing as Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation.) Respondent did not timely file a response to Petitioner's Objections. 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.
In the Objections, Petitioner argues that the Court should receive evidence used against him at trial, that the Court should review a video recording, and that the trial court and the prosecutor know he is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. (Objs., at 1, 3, 5.) As discussed in the Report and Recommendation, the Court cannot review these arguments, let alone the claims in the First Amended Petition, until Petitioner fairly presents them to the California Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999).
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 First Amended Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice. DATED: May 21, 2020
/s/_________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE