United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARSHA J. PECHMAN, District Judge.
The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:
1. Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 73),
2. Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81),
3. Petitioner's Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. No. 82), and all relevant portions of the court record, rules as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's objections are accepted as properly filed, as his motion to amend the judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon review of Petitioner's objections and motion to amend judgment, the Report and Recommendation is again AFFIRMED and ADOPTED; Petitioner's amended habeas corpus petition is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing and the matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as Petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" (28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)), Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
On August 12, 2014, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Mary Theiler entered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, rejecting all eight claims. (Dkt. No. 73.) The deadline for Petitioner to file objections to the R&R was September 2. (Dkt. No. 73.) On September 5, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. (Dkt. Nos. 74.) On September 29, the Court granted the motion for extension of time, amending the deadline for Petitioner to file objections to within 21 days of the date of the order. (Dkt. No. 77.) On October 23, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to enter objections to the R&R and ordered that 1) the R&R was adopted, 2) an evidentiary hearing was denied, and 3) the case was dismissed. (Dkt. No. 79.) On October 24, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Dkt. No. 81.)
Petitioner has raised ten objections to the R&R:
1. The R&R did not sufficiently address the issue of exhaustion of Claim One. (Dkt. No. 82 at 16.)
2. The R&R incorrectly decided the merits of Claim One. (Id. at 23.)
3. The R&R incorrectly found that Petitioner did not fairly present Claims Two through Four to the state court. (Id. at 23.)
4. The R&R incorrectly found that Claims Two through Four are procedurally defaulted. (Id. at 27.)
5. The R&R's reliance on RCW 10.73.090 for the basis of procedural default is incorrect. (Id. at 28.)
6. The R&R incorrectly concluded that Claims Two through Four were not exhausted or not excused ...