UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2010
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER,
M.S. EVANS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cormac J. Carney United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the entire file de novo, including the Petition; the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on February 12, 2010; Petitioner's Objections filed on March 5, 2010,*fn1 and the records and files. Based upon the Court's de novo review, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing. (Objections at 2-3.) Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he has not shown that a hearing would enable him to prove factual allegations that, if true, would entitle him to federal habeas relief. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed. 2d 836 (2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B). Petitioner has not made the requisite showing under any ground for relief. See, e.g., Schriro, 550 U.S. at 477, 481 (petitioner not entitled to evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel claim when petitioner could not show prejudice). Petitioner states that "factual disputes still exists [sic]" without detailing what the disputes are or how, if the facts were resolved in his favor, they would entitle him to relief. (Objections at 3; see also Reply at 8; see Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 926 (2009).
Petitioner's other objections are without merit.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted and that Judgment be entered dismissing the petition with prejudice.