UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 25, 2011
CHARLES RAE WELLER, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL EVANS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Philip S. Gutierrez United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner does not object to any portions of the Report. Instead, he requests an evidentiary hearing as "this is the only recourse left available." (Objections at 2.) Petitioner states no basis for his request other than alleging it "is supported by the Grounds contained in his Writ of Habeas Corpus in its entirety." (Id.) Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied 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). In addition, all five grounds in the Petition were adjudicated on the merits by the California Supreme Court. (See Report at 9.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a review of such cases "is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398, 175 L. Ed. 2d 577 (2011).
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.