1

2 O 3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WALTER GLENN COMPTON, Case No. 2:16-cv-08557-ODW-KES

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

14 WARREN MONTGOMERY, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Warden,

16 Respondent.

17

18

19 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the initial Petition (Dkt.

20 1), the operative First Amended Petition (Dkt. 66), the Report and Recommendation 21 of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 83), and the other records on file herein. 22 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 23 and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 84, 85) have been made. The Court 24 accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 25 Petitioner’s objections appear to raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct 26 based on the prosecutor’s alleged mischaracterization of evidence during argument 27 and/or the prosecutor’s decision to introduce certain evidence at trial. (See Dkt. 84 28 1 | at 2-3, 6 [referring to a “habeas claim of prosecutorial misconduct” and arguing that 2 | the prosecutor “intentionally mislay [sic] the jury by introducing false and misleading 3 | evidence to the court”]; Dkt. 85 at 2 [same].) These claims do not appear in the 4 | operative First Amended Petition, because the Court previously denied Petitioner 5 | leave to amend his Petition to include them. (Dkt. 34, 37.) Thus, they are not 6 | properly raised at this time. To the extent the objections can be construed as raising 7 | new claims and arguments, the Court exercises its discretion not to consider them. 8 | See Brown v. Roe,

(9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a district court 9 | has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or arguments presented for 10 | the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation but the 11 | court “must actually exercise its discretion,” rather than summarily accepting or 12 | denying the R&R). 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the First 14 | Amended Petition with prejudice. 15 Fa. 16 | DATED: March 10, 2020 Cgge 17 18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28