Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01400/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01400-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS DUANE TURNER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-cv-1400 JLS

(RBB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DENYING PETITION, AND

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 30)

vs.

MACK JENKINS/JOEL MARTIN

PROB. DEPT.; VISTA CALIFORNIA

ADULT PROBATION DEPT.; and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Marcus Duane Turner’s (“Petitioner”)

Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“SAP”). (ECF No. 21.) Also

before the Court is Magistrate Judge Brooks’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

advising the Court to deny Petitioner’s SAP. (ECF No. 30.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a

district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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

- 1 - 12cv1400

Case 3:12-cv-01400-JLS-RBB Document 35 Filed 11/04/13 Page 1 of 3
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

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, the parties have failed to timely file objections to the R&R. Even

construing Petitioner’s two untimely filings1

 submitted in response to the

R&R—captioned “Answer to Objections to Report and Recommendation”—as

objections, Petitioner fails to raise any substantive arguments to Magistrate Judge

Brooks’ conclusions on Petitioner’s claims. Rather, Petitioner rehashes the substantive

arguments he already presented. Thus, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error only. 

See Turner v. Tilton, No. 07-CV-2036-JLS (AJB), 2008 WL 5273526, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

Dec. 18, 2008) (“[H]is objections do not address the substance of the R&R’s findings. 

Instead, the objections discuss at length the claims made in the petition. Thus, the Court

finds that Petitioner has not made an objection to any specific portion of the report. 

Therefore, the Court need only satisfy itself that the R&R is not clearly erroneous.”);

see also Larry v. Tilton, No. 09-CV-00950 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL 4501378, at *4 (S.D.

Cal. Sept. 28, 2011); Wright v. Contreras, No. 09-CV-2566 JLS (MDD), 2012 WL

834859, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds

that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court

ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R in its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s

SAP. 

The Court is also obliged to determine whether a certificate of appealability

should issue in this matter. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant

1

The first was filed nunc pro tunc to October 7, 2013 (ECF Nos. 31, 32); the second was filed

nunc pro tunc to October 29, 2013 (ECF Nos. 33, 34).

- 2 - 12cv1400

Case 3:12-cv-01400-JLS-RBB Document 35 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 3
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

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). When a petitioner’s claims have been denied on the merits, as here, a

petitioner can meet the threshold of a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right” by demonstrating that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists

of reason; (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v.

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)). 

Here, the Court finds that no reasonable jurist could disagree with this Court’s

resolution of Petitioner’s claims and denial of the writ. The evidence in the record

supports the outcome, and the resolution of Petitioner’s claims was not a close one. The

representation Petitioner received from his counsel was not deficient, because his

counsel did not, as Petitioner argues, overlook a meritorious argument. Rather, counsel

objected at the suppression motion hearing to the admission of the evidence. Petitioner

further failed to establish a cognizable habeas Fourth Amendment claim, because the

claim was fully and fairly litigated both in the state trial court and on appeal. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R in

its entirety (ECF No. 30) and DENIES Petitioner’s SAP. Further, the Court DENIES

a certificate of appealability in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1400

Case 3:12-cv-01400-JLS-RBB Document 35 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 3