Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00136/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00136-0/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 - 07cv136

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. WESTBROOKS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-136 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND (3)

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 15)

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 and Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

advising this Court to deny the petition. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 15.)

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

duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “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)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

Case 3:09-cv-00136-JLS-POR Document 19 Filed 04/20/10 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 - 07cv136

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

In this case, Petitioner has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Porter’s R&R.

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear

error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and DENIES the petition.

Finally, this Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability

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

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see

also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should

not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

This petition raised two legal issues: whether the jury instructions were constitutionally

deficient and whether this constitutes structural error. Neither of these merit a certificate of

appealability. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree that the California Court of

Appeal’s conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established

federal law. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability should issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00136-JLS-POR Document 19 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 2