UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 13, 2011
BRUNO AMIN MALDONADO, PETITIONER,
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephen V. Wilson 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 First Amended Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed on December 2, 2010, and the records and files. Based upon the Court's de novo review, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner objects to the issuance of the R&R. (Objections at 1.) Petitioner states that he did not consent to a magistrate judge and that he "requested in writing my wish to have a District Judge instead and my wish was ignored all along." (Id.) Petitioner does not identify any document he filed requesting that his petition be initially evaluated by a district judge; nor has the Court found any such filing. In any event, it is immaterial. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) permits the designation of a magistrate judge "to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of facts and recommendation for the disposition . . . of applications for posttrial relief made by individual convicted of criminal offenses." The phrase "applications for posttrial relief" has been interpreted to include "applications for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254." McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140, 111 S. Ct. 1737, 114 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1991). After filing his initial petition, Petitioner was advised that a magistrate judge would "prepare a report and recommendation" (Dkt. No. 2), which is precisely what she did. The objection is meritless.
Petitioner's objections are overrruled. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the First Amended Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.