Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02174/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02174-2/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

Khary B. Watson,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14cv2174 AJB (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 10]

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

DISMISSING PETITION;

[Doc. No. 8]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

Paul Brazelton, et al.,

Respondent.

Petitioner Khary B. Watson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner challenges his conviction of first degree murder, and

Respondent moved to dismiss. [Doc. No. 8.] The matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major for preparation of a Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Major issued a

well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending the Court grant Respondent’s

- 1 - 14cv2174

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 02/09/15 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

motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 10.] 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), the 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 [judge].” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). No

objections have been filed. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes the magistrate judge issued an accurate report

and well-reasoned recommendation that the petition be denied. The Court ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS the motion to dismiss. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the

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

order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there

is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the

issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)). 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and incorporated

by reference herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been met and therefore

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 6, 2015

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

- 2 - 14cv2174

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 2