Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00539/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00539-1/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 - 07CV0539WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SESMA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV0539 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#6)

filed on August 27, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.

On August 27, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed by Petitioner Robert Sesma. The parties were ordered to file any objections to the

Report and Recommendation on or before September 24, 2007. Petitioner filed objections to

the Report and Recommendation. 

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the 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). 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

Case 3:07-cv-00539-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 10/30/07 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 - 07CV0539WQH

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge filed on August 27, 2007 and adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the Petitioner had a protected

liberty interest in a parole date and that there was some evidence to support the denial of

parole. The Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that the state court decision

denying Petitioner’s habeas claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of

clearly established U.S. Supreme Court law and that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under

28 U.S.C. §2254(d). 

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

(Doc.#6) are ADOPTED and the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

DATED: October 30, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00539-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2