Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01942/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01942-1/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 - 04CV1942 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN CURRAN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 04CV1942 WQH (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD and A.K.

SCRIBNER,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ruben B.

Brooks recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 1). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 24, 2004, Petitioner Shawn Curran filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). Between December 2004 and May 2006, the Magistrate

Judge granted Petitioner’s motions to hold the Writ of Habeas Corpus in abeyance while Petitioner

exhausted claims in state court. (Docs. # 6, 12, 17, 20, 24). On October 17, 2006, Respondents

answered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 26). On January 19, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge ordered Petitioner to file any traverse on or before February 16, 2007. (Docs. # 28). 

Petitioner did not file a traverse, and on May 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Brooks issued the

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 30). Neither party filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation.

Case 3:04-cv-01942-WQH-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/10/07 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

- 2 - 04CV1942 WQH (RBB)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless,

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal.

2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this case, and

this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the California Court of Appeals’ application of federal law

was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

that the California Court of Appeals’ opinion did not involve an unreasonable determination of the

facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Though the state trial court improperly excluded certain statements pursuant to California hearsay law,

the California Court of Appeals’ finding that the exclusion did not violate Petitioner’s federal

constitutional right to present a defense was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal

law. Report and Recommendation at 21-25; see also Miller v. Stagner, 757 F.2d 988, 994-995 (9th

Cir. 1985); Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004). 

/

/

/

Case 3:04-cv-01942-WQH-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/10/07 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

- 3 - 04CV1942 WQH (RBB)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is adopted in

its entirety, and Petitioner Shawn Curran’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01942-WQH-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 3