William Burch v. Charles W. Callahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On May 19, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the R. & R. through counsel. Petitioner does not point to any alleged errors committed by the Magistrate Judge. To the contrary, he continues to rehash the incorrect legal arguments he raised in the FAP and his Reply despite the Magistrate Judge’s having pointed out to him why they were wrong. (Compare, e.g., Objs. at 22, 28, 31 (continuing to argue that harmless-error review is under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)), with R. & R. at 14 n.7 (explaining that Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993), not Chapman, is 1 the correct standard), and Objs. at…