The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 25.)
Presently before the Court is Thomas Gene Mayfield's (Petitioner) first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 19 ("FAP").) The petition challenges the Board of Prison Terms's ("Board") decision to deny Petitioner's release for parole.
Also before this Court is Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (R&R) advising this Court to dismiss the instant petition, (Doc. No. 25) and Petitioner's objections. (Doc. No. 26.) For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation and DISMISSES the petition.
Magistrate Judge McCurine's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the facts. (R&R, at 1--4.) This Order incorporates by reference the facts as set forth in the R&R.
Petitioner filed the instant petition on April 17, 2008, claiming violations of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the California Constitution by the board's decision denying him parole. (FAP, at 3.) On May 16, 2008, Respondent filed a response to the petition. (Doc. No. 20.) On July 9, 2008, Petitioner filed a traverse. (Doc. No. 24.) On December 3, 2008, Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that this Court deny the present petition. (Doc. No. 25.) Petitioner timely filed his objections on December 29, 2008. (Doc. No. 26.)
I. Review of the Report and Recommendation
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. "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)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).
II. Review of Habeas Corpus Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), this Court may only review claims within an application for a writ of habeas corpus based "on the ground that [the Petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Where the Petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court," this Court may only grant the petition if: the adjudication of the claim [either] (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
Under § 2254(d)(1), federal law must be "clearly established" in order to support a habeas claim. The United States Supreme Court has held that "clearly established" "refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court's ...