Randolph A. Jackson v. I. Hetmer
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 10 RANDOLPH A. JACKSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-07830-JAK (AFM) Petitioner,
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF I. HETMER, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Respondent. 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 17 file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, 18 the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 19 objections have been made. 20 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the exception of the matters 21 addressed below, Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion because they are 22 addressed appropriately in the Report. 23 Petitioner complains that the records related to his 1981 conviction have been 24 destroyed. (ECF No. 19 at 1-3.) To the extent that Petitioner seeks to assert a claim 25 related to the destruction of records, it is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus 26 action. A habeas corpus action necessarily presents a…