Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jorge Rojas-Lopez v. Mike Mcdonald

March 2, 2013

JORGE ROJAS-LOPEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE MCDONALD, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez United States District Judge

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc. No. 13]

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND [Doc. No. 5]

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before the Court is Petitioner Jorge Rojas-Lopez's First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("the Petition"). [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping for ransom in San Diego County Superior Court and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. [Id. at 6-7.] He claims: (1) that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding of bodily harm; and (2) that the superior court erred in instructing the jury that a finding of bodily harm did not depend on a finding of great bodily injury. [Id.]

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Karen. S. Crawford, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending that the Petition be denied. [Doc. No. 13.] The R & R concludes that the Petition should be denied because the jury's finding of bodily harm was supported by sufficient evidence and the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous. [See id. at 8, 10.] The time for filing objections to the R & R expired on September 12, 2012. [See id. at 12.] Petitioner has not filed any objections.

DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id.

In this case, the time for filing objections to the R & R passed months ago and Petitioner has not filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R & R on that basis alone. See id. Having reviewed the Petition, Respondent's Answer, [Doc. No. 10], and the R & R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the R & R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R and DENIES the Petition. The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130302

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.