UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 13, 2007
RONALD BRIM SR., PETITIONER,
RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of California
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE; and (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On November 23, 2005, Ronald Brim, Sr., ("petitioner"), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition").*fn1 Petitioner, in his petition, claims that his Constitutional due process and equal protection rights were violated because a disciplinary committee found him guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing . (Petition at 6-11.)
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On March 21, 2006, respondent filed an answer to the petitioner for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of his petition on March 24, 2006. (Doc. No. 18.)
On January 18, 2007, Magistrate Judge McCurine issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the court deny the petition as to both petitioner's due process and equal protection arguments. (Doc. No. 19.) The court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge's Report, and there being no objections filed to the Report, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full.
The court hereby DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. Furthermore, the Court DENIES petitioner a certificate of appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.