Cruz Alonzo Gutierrez v. Clark E Ducart et al, No. 5:2014cv02569 - Document 61 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Objections"). The Court notes that, in concert with the Objections, Petitioner filed a Motion To Expand Record ("Motion") with several exhibits attached. (Dkt. No. 58.) The Court concludes that this evidence does not affect the correctness of the Report's conclusions. H aving completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 56 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (gr)

Download PDF
Cruz Alonzo Gutierrez v. Clark E Ducart et al Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CRUZ ALONZO GUTIERREZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) ) CLARK E. DUCART, Warden, ) Respondent. ) _________________________________ ) NO. EDCV 14-2569-AB (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 Second Amended Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, the Report and 20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to 21 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Objections”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those 23 portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. 24 25 The Court notes that, in concert with the Objections, Petitioner filed a Motion To 26 Expand Record (“Motion”) with several exhibits attached. 27 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on 28 the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). Nevertheless, to the extent that (Dkt. No. 58.) “[U]nder § Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner asks the Court to consider the exhibits attached to the Motion as part of his 2 Objections, the Motion is GRANTED, and the Court exercises its discretion to consider 3 evidence presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See 4 Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 5 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court concludes that this evidence does not affect the correctness 6 of the Report’s conclusions. 7 8 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set 9 forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) 10 Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: June 27, 2017 ________________________________ ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. 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.