Jorge A. Hernandez v. S. Frauenheom
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JORGE A. HERNANDEZ, ) NO. CV 19-10892-AB (KS)
11 Petitioner, ) 12 ) v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden, ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 _________________________________ )
17 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus, all the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States 21 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 22 portions of the Report to which Petitioner has raised objections (“Objections”). For the reasons 23 below, Petitioner’s Objections are overruled. 24 25 First, Petitioner objects that he was not afforded adequate translation services during his 26 trial. (Objections at 3.) For the first time in his Objections, Petitioner alleges that the 27 translation services were…