Ana Rosenda Mancio v. Mona D. Houston

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Ana Rosenda Mancio v. Mona D. Houston

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANA ROSENDA MANCIO, Case No. CV 2:21-09156 SVW (RAO)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 MONA D. HOUSTON, Warden, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 Respondent. JUDGE 16 17 Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Petition, all of the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 19 Recommendation (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and her 20 Supplemental Lodging of documents. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo 21 review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. 22 The Court does not find Petitioner’s objections to be meritorious but does 23 comment on a factual challenge raised by Petitioner. Petitioner objects to the 24 Report’s statement that the 9 mm casings found at her house were fired from the same 25 gun as an expended 9 mm casing found at the crime scene. See Dkt. No. 83 at 37. 26 The factual summary set forth in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion stated that 27 the government’s firearms expert “concluded two of the 5 nine-millimeter casings 28 recovered at [Petitioner]’s home had been fired from the same weapon as the shell 1 || casing found at the crime scene.” (Lodg. No. 2 at 10-11.) The Court’s review of the 2 || firearms expert’s trial testimony is consistent with the appellate court’s factual 3 || summary. Because Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that the state court’s 4 || findings of fact are correct with clear and convincing evidence, the Court overrules 5 || Petitioner’s objection. See Tilcock v. Budge,

538 F.3d 1138, 1141

(9th Cir. 2008). 6 The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 7 || of the Magistrate Judge. 8 IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Petition is denied and Judgment 9 || shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 10 , on we 11 || DATED: November 7, 2024 <§[GEn/P fe nn 0 STEPHEN V.WILSON 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown