Charles Holmes Jr v. Jeff Macomber, No. 2:2016cv00311 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald for Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.(Issued) 20 (sbu)

Download PDF
Charles Holmes Jr v. Jeff Macomber Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CHARLES HOLMES, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, ) Respondent. ) _________________________________ ) NO. CV 16-311-MWF (KS) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 21 Report and Recommendation (“Objections”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 23 which objections have been stated. 24 25 Petitioner makes novel assertions in, and appends several newly-presented exhibits to, 26 his Objections. A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or 27 arguments presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See 28 Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, Dockets.Justia.com 1 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has exercised its discretion to consider Petitioner’s new 2 assertions and evidence, but concludes that they do not alter the analysis and conclusions set 3 forth in the Report. 4 5 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set 6 forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) 7 Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: November 1, 2016 ________________________________ MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.