Jonathan Anthony Mendez v. People of the State of California

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Jonathan Anthony Mendez v. People of the State of California

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 WESTERN DIVISION 5 6 7 JONATHAN ANTHONY MENDEZ, No. ED CV 18-2285-VBF-RAO 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. Overruling Petitioner’s Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; 10 tru o C tc irtsiD se ta tS tc ira ti sn ir Do fila C fo 1 111 2 431

W ( WA a

TR r hdR ee E n C)N , o uM rtO hN a sT rG eR vO e iesM p woE enR dd Y te hn et . r ecords iD D T ne e i trs hn mm iy siii nsn cs a ag i t s n it enh g g ae t n h aH de na d tAb h Ce c ea t li as oo p sC n pi no lw igr cp i aAtu h bcs lP t eP ir o le e ant j wi u t (di .Jo i S Acn -e s; 6 ; ) d e tin U la rtn e C 11 65

r oe fq tu hi er e pd o rb ty io F ne sd o. fR th. eC Riv e. pP o. r7 t2 a( nb d)( 3 R) e, ct oh me C mo eu nr dt ah tia os n e n (“g Rag &e Rd ”i )n td oe w n ho iv co h review 17 petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in 18 the R&R. The Court finds discussion of the objections to be unnecessary on 19 this record. “The Magistrates Act ‘merely requires the district judge to make a 20 de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 21 findings or recommendation to which objection is made.’” It does not require a 22 written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. 23 Calif. AG,

2016 WL 5339566

, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). 24 “This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.” 25 Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council,

2016 WL 6069179

, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). 26 Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and 27 legal conclusions and implement the R&R’s recommendations. 28 1 I ORDER 2 Petitioner’s objection [Doc # 11] is OVERRULED. 3 The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 10] is ADOPTED. 4 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Doc # 1] is DENIED. 5 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 Final judgment consistent with this order will be entered separately as 7 | required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Jayne v. Sherman,

706 F.3d 994

, 1009 8 | (9th Cir. 2013). 9 The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order. 10 The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). p.s BE tl Cs IT IS SO ORDERED. BS n BS As 13 ge Dated: August 12, 2019 leten Liber Fawhoashe aa ” HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK SE 15 Senior United States District Judge ze Po 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown