UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 29, 2008
ELLIE DUBY, PETITIONER,
DAWN DAVISON, WARDEN, ET AL. RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 24)
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed her fourth amended § 2254 habeas petition on December 14, 2007. (Doc. no. 16.) She challenges her conviction in San Diego Superior court for grand theft of personal property and uttering non-sufficient fund checks. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on March 18, 2008. Petitioner filed a traverse on May 7, 2008. On June 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the court deny the petition with prejudice. (Doc. no. 24.) Neither party filed objections.
Having carefully considered the R&R, the record before the court, the absence of any objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The decision of the California Court of Appeals was not contrary to, and did not involve "an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 804 (1991) (court reviews last reasoned state-court decision). Furthermore, the decision was not "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Accordingly, the court DENIES with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus, under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2). The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.