Summary
finding that prosecutor's remarks as to what the reasonable-doubt standard does not mean did not attempt to negate the presumption of innocence
Summary of this case from Thomas v. PattonOpinion
Case No. CIV-09-0281-F.
January 27, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner is a state prison appearing pro se, seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His pleadings are liberally construed.
Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo entered a Report and Recommendation on November 25, 2009 (doc. no. 20), recommending that the petition be denied as to grounds one, three, four, five, six and seven, and that consideration of ground two be deferred pending further briefing. Petitioner filed a timely objection to the Report, objecting to the magistrate judge's recommendation that grounds one, three, four, five, six and seven be denied. Petitioner did not object to deferral of ground two pending additional briefing. (Doc. no. 23.) The court reviews all objected to issues de novo.
After careful study of petitioner's objections, the Report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the court finds and concludes that it concurs with the magistrate judge's determinations. The court further finds that no purpose would be served by repeating the magistrate judge's determinations or by presenting any additional analysis here.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Argo is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED in its entirety. The petition for writ of habeas relief is DENIED to the extent that it rests on petitioner's grounds one, three, four, five, six and seven. A ruling on ground two is deferred, pending the magistrate judge's further consideration of that ground after supplemental briefing. This matter remains referred to the magistrate judge.