UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2013
MAURICIO J. GODOY,
RANDY GROUNDS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary A. Feessunited States District Judge
) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Petitioner's Objections to the Report. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those matters to which objections have been stated in writing.
Petitioner has appended to his Objections two documents that were not presented to the Magistrate Judge. A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has exercised its discretion to consider these two new documents, but concludes that they do not affect or alter the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. Both documents are outside of the relevant statute of limitations period, neither document provides persuasive support for Petitioner's assertions, and one of them (the June 16, 2009 form) contradicts Petitioner's assertions with respect to a purported language-related impediment.
Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report.
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.