Ana Rosenda Mancio v. Mona D. Houston

Opinion

ANA ROSENDA MANCIO, Case No. CV 2:21-09156 SVW (RAO)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND MONA D. HOUSTON, Warden, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Respondent. JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, all of the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and her Supplemental Lodging of documents. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court does not find Petitioner’s objections to be meritorious but does comment on a factual challenge raised by Petitioner. Petitioner objects to the Report’s statement that the 9 mm casings found at her house were fired from the same gun as an expended 9 mm casing found at the crime scene. See Dkt. No. 83 at 37. The factual summary set forth in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion stated that the government’s firearms expert “concluded two of the 5 nine-millimeter casings recovered at [Petitioner]’s home had been fired from the same weapon as the shell casing found at the crime scene.” (Lodg. No. 2 at 10-11.) The Court’s review of the firearms expert’s trial testimony is consistent with the appellate court’s factual summary. Because Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that the state court’s findings of fact are correct with clear and convincing evidence, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection. See Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Petition is denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. , on we DATED: November 7, 2024 <§[GEn/P fe nn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE