William Burch v. Charles W. Callahan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM BURCH, ) Case No. CV 18-5899-FMO (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID HOLBROOK, Warden, ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 First Amended Petition, records on file, and Report and 19 Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On May 19, 2021, 20 Petitioner filed objections to the R. & R. through counsel. 21 Petitioner does not point to any alleged errors committed by 22 the Magistrate Judge. To the contrary, he continues to rehash 23 the incorrect legal arguments he raised in the FAP and his Reply 24 despite the Magistrate Judge’s having pointed out to him why they 25 were wrong. (Compare, e.g., Objs. at 22, 28, 31 (continuing to 26 argue that harmless-error review is under Chapman v. California, 27 386 U.S. 18 (1967)), with R. & R. at 14 n.7 (explaining that 28 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993), not Chapman, is 1 1 the correct standard), and Objs. at 18-19 (arguing that charged 2 offenses did not fall within “same class of crimes” under state 3 law), with R. & R. at 18-19 (explaining that federal habeas court 4 is bound by state-court determinations on state law).) 5 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 6 which Petitioner objected, the Court accepts the findings and 7 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. It therefore is ORDERED 8 that the FAP’s remaining claims are DENIED and this action is 9 dismissed with prejudice. 10 11 DATED: J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 2 1 / s / FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 12 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2