Albert L. Watson v. Stu Sherman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALBERT L. WATSON, Case No. 5:19-cv-01780-JLS-MAA

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

STU SHERMAN, Warden, et al., JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“R&R”). The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s objections to the R&R, which the Court received and filed on August 25, 2020 (“Objections”). (Objs., ECF No. 25.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Petitioner specifically has objected. First, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge should have reviewed his claim in Ground Two de novo because the California Court of Appeal did not provide a “reasoned opinion” rejecting this claim. (Objs., at 2–4.) However, a “reasoned opinion” simply…