Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00877/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00877-0/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 - 05cv0877

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUNO MEDINA BUGARA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05 CV 0877 JM (CAB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND 

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

vs.

STUART J. RYAN, Warden,

Respondent.

On April 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Petitioner challenges his April 15, 2002 conviction in San Diego Superior Court for various

assault and drug crimes, crimes which were found to have been committed while Petitioner was under

the influence of methamphetamine. Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) of the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending

that the petition be denied. See Docket No. 25. Petitioner filed timely objections. For the reasons

set forth below, the court wholly ADOPTS the conclusions and findings contained in the R&R,

incorporated by reference herein.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set forth in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the

court 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); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-00877-JM-CAB Document 27 Filed 02/21/07 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 - 05cv0877

The court will now conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Petitioner

objects. In his objection papers, Petitioner essentially repeats arguments already made to the

magistrate. Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights were violated when the state trial court

excluded Petitioner’s expert testimony on the pharmacological effects of methamphetamine on the

ground that such testimony was irrelevant to the general intent crimes with which Petitioner had been

charged. However, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, the exclusion of such testimony did not rise

to the level of fundamental unfairness since, among other things, Petitioner was able to offer other

evidence of his methamphetamine-induced state, such as the testimony of his wife/victim, the

testimony of the arresting officer, and statements by a toxicologist who testified on the effects of

methamphetamine on the human body. R&R at 22. Petitioner also objects to the R&R on the ground

that the testimony of his wife and the toxicologist were irrelevant on the issue of mental state.

Petitioner’s Objections at 2. Not only is this objection inconsistent with Petitioner’s original

argument, see Pet. at 17 (arguing that such testimony was “properly admitted”), but, as is the case with

respect to the exclusion of his expert’s testimony, Petitioner fails to show that admitting this evidence

was fundamentally unfair. For these reasons, Petitioner’s objections lack merit.

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusion contained in the R&R.

The petition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 21, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Bencivengo 

All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-00877-JM-CAB Document 27 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2