Constantino Vejar Sanchez v. Connie Gibson, No. 2:2014cv04730 - Document 31 (C.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, Petitioner's request for a copy of the videotape is denied, and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for details) 29 24 , (bem)

Download PDF
Constantino Vejar Sanchez v. Connie Gibson Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSTANTINO VEJAR SANCHEZ, Petitioner, 12 13 14 vs. STU SHERMAN, Warden, Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 14-4730-JAK (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 18 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. 19 U.S.C. § 636. 20 to the R&R, in which he mostly repeats arguments from the 21 Petition and Reply. See 28 On September 18, 2015, Petitioner filed objections 22 As he did in his Reply (see Reply at 6-8), Petitioner 23 alleges that his victim hit him with a metal staple gun and put 24 five staples in his head (Objections at 1-2). 25 although “there’s no mention of that in the record,” he presented 26 the staple-gun allegation to the state courts on habeas review in 27 the form of a medical report. 28 exists among the exhibits attached to his state-supreme-court (Id. at 1.) He states that But no such document 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 habeas petition, and Petitioner does not allege anything about a 2 staple gun on that petition’s form. 3 at 32-56.)1 4 although Petitioner testified in his defense at trial, he never 5 mentioned a staple gun. 6 (See generally Pet., Ex. A Further, as the Magistrate Judge noted (R&R at 25), Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which 7 objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and 8 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 9 Petition is denied, Petitioner’s request for a copy of the IT IS ORDERED that the 10 videotape is denied, and Judgment be entered dismissing this 11 action with prejudice. 12 13 DATED: 10/9/15 JOHN A. KRONSTADT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Further, none of the exhibits presented to the state supreme court were missing in the copy of the petition submitted to this Court. Petitioner refers to exhibits A1, A2, B1, B2, and C on the supreme-court habeas petition’s form (see Pet., Ex. A at 34), and all five exhibits follow the last page of the petition (id. at 37-55). 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.