UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 3, 2011
JESUS MEDA, PETITIONER,
DOMINGO URIBE, JR.,*FN1 WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner's Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Petitioner's Objections essentially rehash the arguments made in the Petition and the Traverse. He also adds vague and generalized allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent that Petitioner is attempting to assert new claims of ineffective assistance that were not advanced in the Petition, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to consider such belatedly raised and unexhausted claims at this juncture. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a party's objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation."). That aside, even if this Court were to consider such claims, Petitioner's bald allegations are insufficient to state a basis for habeas relief. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.").
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.
2. Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.