UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 30, 2007
ROBERT SESMA, PETITIONER,
ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#6) filed on August 27, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.
On August 27, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Robert Sesma. The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before September 24, 2007. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
RULING OF THE COURT
The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on August 27, 2007 and adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the Petitioner had a protected liberty interest in a parole date and that there was some evidence to support the denial of parole. The Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that the state court decision denying Petitioner's habeas claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court law and that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#6) are ADOPTED and the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
United States District Judge WILLIAM Q. HAYES
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.