# Walter Glenn Compton v. Montgomery

> District Court, C.D. California · March 10, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10037271

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** March 10, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10037271

## Opinion text

1

2
O
3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WALTER GLENN COMPTON, Case No. 2:16-cv-08557-ODW-KES

12 Petitioner,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
13 v.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

14 WARREN MONTGOMERY, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Warden,

16 Respondent.

17

18

19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the initial Petition (Dkt.

20 1), the operative First Amended Petition (Dkt. 66), the Report and Recommendation
21 of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 83), and the other records on file herein.
22 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report
23 and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 84, 85) have been made. The Court
24 accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
25 Petitioner’s objections appear to raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct
26 based on the prosecutor’s alleged mischaracterization of evidence during argument
27 and/or the prosecutor’s decision to introduce certain evidence at trial. (See Dkt. 84
28
1 | at 2-3, 6 [referring to a “habeas claim of prosecutorial misconduct” and arguing that
2 | the prosecutor “intentionally mislay [sic] the jury by introducing false and misleading
3 | evidence to the court”]; Dkt. 85 at 2 [same].) These claims do not appear in the
4 | operative First Amended Petition, because the Court previously denied Petitioner
5 | leave to amend his Petition to include them. (Dkt. 34, 37.) Thus, they are not
6 | properly raised at this time. To the extent the objections can be construed as raising
7 | new claims and arguments, the Court exercises its discretion not to consider them.
8 | See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a district court
9 | has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or arguments presented for
10 | the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation but the
11 | court “must actually exercise its discretion,” rather than summarily accepting or
12 | denying the R&R).
13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the First
14 | Amended Petition with prejudice.
15 Fa.
16 | DATED: March 10, 2020 Cgge
17
18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10037271. Public record. Not legal advice.