Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00494/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00494-3/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 - 07CV0494WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV0494 WQH (PCL)

ORDER

vs.

W.J. SULLIVAN et al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#34)

filed on August 14, 2008 by the United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis.

Petitioner asserts that his federal constitutional rights were violated for the following

reasons: the trial court denied his motion for disclosure of juror information; there was

insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy to commit kidnaping for robbery and

kidnaping for robbery; the trial court erred in not requiring the jury to unanimously agree on

which act constituted movement for the purposes of kidnaping for robbery; and the trial court

imposed upper terms on counts five through eight, and consecutive sentences on counts one,

three and four. 

On August 14, 2008, the United States Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) and deny

the Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (Doc #27). The parties were ordered to file any

Case 3:07-cv-00494-WQH-PCL Document 42 Filed 10/30/08 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 - 07CV0494WQH

objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before August 29, 2008. 

On August 26, 2008, Petitioner moved this Court for an extension of time to file

objections to the Report and Recommendation which was granted by this Court. 

On September 22, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions

of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The Court has considered all objections filed by the Petitioner and reviewed de novo all aspects

of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts all portions of

the Report and Recommendation filed on August 14, 2008. The Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights were not violated and that the state

court decision denying Petitioner’s habeas claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court law. This Court concludes that

Petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation

(Doc.#34) are ADOPTED and the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc # 1) is DENIED and the

Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (Doc #27) is DENIED.

DATED: October 30, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00494-WQH-PCL Document 42 Filed 10/30/08 Page 2 of 2