1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD I. SEAU, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0572-CAB-DEB

12 PETITIONER, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 14] AND GRANTING MOTION TO 14 CHRISTIAN PFIEFFER, Warden, et al., DISMISS [Doc. No. 11.] 15 RESPONDENTS. 16 17 On March 22, 2024, Petitioner (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. [Doc. No. 1.] On September 30, 19 2024, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 11.] On June 30, 2025, Magistrate 20 Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending 21 that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 14.] The Report also ordered that 22 any objections were to be filed by July 14, 2025. [Report at 6.] 23 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 24 and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure and

(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those portions of 26 the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made.

(b)(1). 27 The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 28 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

1 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report, which the Court resolves de novo. 2 ||[Doc. No. 15.] Against the Report’s conclusion that no tolling provision saves the petition 3 || from AEDPA’s statute of limitations, Petitioner again argues that the “factual innocence” 4 ||exception applies to his claim. See Schlup v. Delo,

(1995). The 5 Court agrees with the Report’s well-reasoned analysis. Petitioner has not identified any 6 || new, reliable evidence to warrant the application of the “actual innocence” exception. Lee 7 || v. Lampert,

, 932, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2011) (actual innocence exception requires 8 ||the production of “new reliable evidence . . . that was not presented at trial” (quoting 9 || Schlup,

)). His objection specifically points to the record established at 10 |/trial. As properly concluded in the Report, Petitioner is not entitled to review of his time- 11 || barred claims. 12 The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 13 ||} ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 14.] in its entirety. The Court HEREBY GRANTS the 14 || motion to dismiss. 15 It is SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: July 28, 2025 € Ee 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28