Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01459/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01459-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYSHEON MARQUISE BURTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv1459-WQHMDD

vs. ORDER

D. PARAMO, Warden, and KAMALA

HARRIS, Attorney General of the

State of California,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 13) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin,

recommending that this Court deny Petitioner Raysheon Marquise Burton’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).

I. Background

On April 30, 2009, a jury in San Diego County Superior Court convicted

Petitioner of first degree murder and attempted murder. The trial court sentenced

Petitioner to an aggregate sentence of life plus a term of 75 years to life in state prison. 

On January 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner’s conviction

in a written opinion, and on March 28, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily

denied Petitioner’s petition for review. (Lodgment Nos. 6, 8).

On June 24, 2013, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of

- 1 - 13cv1459-WQH-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-01459-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 07/30/14 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

Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. (ECF No. 1). 

Petitioner asserts the following ground for relief: “Whether evidence of co-defendant’s

comments to the police denigrating [Petitioner]’s mental acuity should have been

admitted as relevant non-hearsay evidence of consciousness of guilt because it

corroborated [Petitioner]’s trial theory that co-defendant rather than [Petitioner] was the

actual shooter.” Id. at 7.

On September 4, 2013, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (ECF No.

7). On November 15, 2013, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 12).

On April 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety. (ECF No. 13). The Report

and Recommendation concludes: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written

objection to this REPORT must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later

than May 13, 2014.... The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specific time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s

order.” Id. at 18 (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 1998 (9th Cir. 1998)).

The docket reflects that neither party filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects 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. § 636(b)(1). When no

objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and recommendation

de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

- 2 - 13cv1459-WQH-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-01459-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 07/30/14 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

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court has

reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court finds that

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d). The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Petition should be denied. 

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the

petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[A] [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner

shows ... that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

this Court was correct in denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of

appealability.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety. (ECF No. 13). The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 1). A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall

close this case.

DATED: July 30, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1459-WQH-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-01459-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 3