Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00915/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00915-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0915

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIE DUBY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07 CV 0915 JM (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. No. 24)

vs.

DAWN DAVISON, Warden, et al.

Respondent.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed her fourth amended § 2254 habeas petition on December

14, 2007. (Doc. no. 16.) She challenges her conviction in San Diego Superior court for grand theft

of personal property and uttering non-sufficient fund checks. Respondent filed an answer to the

petition on March 18, 2008. Petitioner filed a traverse on May 7, 2008. On June 25, 2008, Magistrate

Judge Jan M. Adler issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court deny

the petition with prejudice. (Doc. no. 24.) Neither party filed objections. 

Having carefully considered the R&R, the record before the court, the absence of any

objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.

The decision of the California Court of Appeals was not contrary to, and did not involve “an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 804 (1991)

(court reviews last reasoned state-court decision). Furthermore, the decision was not “based on an

Case 3:07-cv-00915-JM-JMA Document 25 Filed 08/29/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0915

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Accordingly, the court DENIES with prejudice the petition

for writ of habeas corpus, under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2). The Clerk is ordered to

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00915-JM-JMA Document 25 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 2