Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01785/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01785-4/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 - 07cv1785 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN EDWARD FLOWERS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv1785 WQH (BLM)

ORDER

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

17) filed on July 25, 2008 by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major.

Background

On September 10, 2007, Petitioner Jonathan Edward Flowers filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Southern District of California. 

(Doc. #1). On April 4, 2008, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #13). On May 15, 2008 Petitioner filed a Traverse to the Answer to

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #16). On July 25, 2008 United States

Magistrate Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this

Court deny the Petition. (Doc. #17). The parties were ordered to file any objections to the

Report and Recommendation on or before August 15, 2008. Neither party filed objections

to the Report and Recommendation.

Case 3:07-cv-01785-WQH-BLM Document 18 Filed 11/03/08 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 - 07cv1785 WQH (BLM)

Standard of Review

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When 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. § 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 the Report and Recommendation de novo. 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 “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Ruling of the Court

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has

reviewed all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on

July 25, 2008, and adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation. The Report and

Recommendation correctly concluded that (1) Petitioner’s claim that his federal due

process rights were violated when the prosecutor knowingly argued false and inadmissable

evidence to the jury should be dismissed as procedurally barred, (2) the state court’s denial

of Petitioner’s claim that insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction of

attempted robbery of Danielle Soto was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application

of clearly established Supreme Court law, and (3) the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s

claim that the trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury about the lesser included

offense of voluntary manslaughter violated his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury

determine every element of the offense was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

application of clearly established Supreme Court law. 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01785-WQH-BLM Document 18 Filed 11/03/08 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 - 07cv1785 WQH (BLM)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 17) are ADOPTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

DATED: November 3, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01785-WQH-BLM Document 18 Filed 11/03/08 Page 3 of 3