1 2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 TODD ERIC DALTON, Case No. EDCV 18-1445-JLS (KK) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 13 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those 20 portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the 21 findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 22 In his objections to the Report, Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. 23 However, in habeas proceedings, “an evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that 24 can be resolved by reference to the state court record.” Totten v. Merkle,

1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Earp v. Ornoski,

(9th Cir. 26 2005). “It is axiomatic that when issues can be resolved with reference to the state 27 court record, an evidentiary hearing becomes nothing more than a futile exercise.” 1 | claims could be resolved by reference to the state court record. Accordingly, the 2 | Court denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) denying the 4 | Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (2) dismissing this action with prejudice. 5 bel Dated: 02/21/2020 7 HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON 9 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28