UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 10, 2007
SHAWN CURRAN, PETITIONER,
JEANNE S. WOODFORD AND A.K. SCRIBNER, RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 1).
On September 24, 2004, Petitioner Shawn Curran filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). Between December 2004 and May 2006, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's motions to hold the Writ of Habeas Corpus in abeyance while Petitioner exhausted claims in state court. (Docs. # 6, 12, 17, 20, 24). On October 17, 2006, Respondents answered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 26). On January 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to file any traverse on or before February 16, 2007. (Docs. # 28).
Petitioner did not file a traverse, and on May 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Brooks issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 30). Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless, "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in this case, and this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the California Court of Appeals' application of federal law was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the California Court of Appeals' opinion did not involve an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Though the state trial court improperly excluded certain statements pursuant to California hearsay law, the California Court of Appeals' finding that the exclusion did not violate Petitioner's federal constitutional right to present a defense was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. Report and Recommendation at 21-25; see also Miller v. Stagner, 757 F.2d 988, 994-995 (9th Cir. 1985); Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is adopted in its entirety, and Petitioner Shawn Curran's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.