Opinion
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records and files of this case, and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On December 27, 2016, Petitioner, through counsel, filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, in which he mostly repeats and expands upon arguments he made in the Petition, Reply, and Supplemental Reply.
As the Magistrate Judge noted in the R. & R. (see R. & R. at 22 n.7), Petitioner's arguments are not without appeal. But as she also noted (id. & n.8), they concern California courts' interpretation of California statutory law. (See generally Objs. (citing exclusively California law other than to attempt to distinguish federal cases relied upon by Magistrate Judge and cite standard for granting certificate of appealability).) It is not this Court's job to tell California courts how to interpret their own laws. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). The California courts heard, considered, and rejected Petitioner's arguments. This Court is bound by those determinations. Id.
Having reviewed the Petition and made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner objected, the Court concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.