ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 14]; (2) REJECTING. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS [Doc. No. 15]; DENYING THE PETITION. [Doc. No. 1]; AND (4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, District Judge.
Hamza Sharif ("Petitioner"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 72 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Magistrate Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending the Court deny the petition. [Doc. No. 14.] Petitioner filed objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 15.]
Following de novo review of Petitioner's claims, the Court finds the Report to be a thorough, complete, and accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the petition. For the reasons explained below, the Court: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) rejects Petitioner's objections; (3) denies the Petition; and (4) denies a certificate for appealability.
I. Factual Background
The Report contains an accurate recital of the facts as determined by the California Court of Appeal, and the Court fully adopts the Report's statement of facts. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, the Court presumes state court findings of fact to be correct.
II. State Procedural Background
The Report contains a complete and accurate summary of the state court proceedings, and the Court fully adopts the Report's statement of state procedural background.
III. Federal Procedural Background
On November 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition challenging his San Diego County Superior Court conviction. [Doc. No. 1.] Respondent filed an answer to the petition [Doc. No. 10-1.], and lodged portions of the state record. [Doc. No. 11.]
On October 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report recommending the Court deny the Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 14.] On November 8, 2012, Petitioner filed an objection to the Report. [Doc. No. 15.] In his objection, Petitioner argues the magistrate judge erred in finding that the state court made a reasonable application of clearly established federal law or a reasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Because Petitioner objected to the Report in its entirety, the Court reviews the Report de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).
I. Legal ...