Luis Fernando Ortega v. R. E. Barnes, No. 2:2014cv00503 - Document 37 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 28 . IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied without leave to amend, Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied, and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. ( See Order for details) (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Luis Fernando Ortega v. R. E. Barnes Doc. 37 Dockets.Justia.com 1 trial Courts from violating rights of criminal defendants” and 2 “Petitioner cant cite a law that not exist due to no Court will 3 address this issue”), 7 (arguing as to first evidentiary claim 4 that “[t]his is a issue that needs to be addressed for there is 5 no clear rule”), 13 (stating as to second evidentiary claim, 6 “Lacking any Supreme Court authority directly on point, . . .”).) 7 Of course, the Court lacks the power to do what Petitioner asks 8 because 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) defines “clearly established” law 9 as being “determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” 10 11 only. Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which 12 objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and 13 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 14 Petition is denied without leave to amend, Petitioner’s request 15 for an evidentiary hearing is denied, and Judgment be entered 16 dismissing this action with prejudice. IT IS ORDERED that the 17 18 19 20 DATED: August 24, 2015 MICHAEL MICHAEL W FITZGERALD H FITZGERALD A DISTRICT R E U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
