Michael Lamar Rose v. A. Hedgpeth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL LAMAR ROSE, ) Case No. EDCV 11-1654-FLA (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE RAYTHEL FISHER, Warden, ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 17 Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) of U.S. Magistrate Judge, 18 which recommends that the Petition’s two remaining ineffective- 19 assistance-of-counsel claims be denied and this action be 20 dismissed with prejudice. On October 30, 2020, Petitioner filed 21 objections to the R. & R.; Respondent did not reply. 22 Petitioner contends that because his claims must be reviewed 23 de novo, the R. & R. reflects a “misplaced presumption against 24 granting relief, where inferences in favor of denial . . . are 25 rationalized, while virtually unrebutted evidence favoring relief 26 is undermined and dismissed.” (Objs. at 1.) …