# Walter Lee Cole v. B. Cates

> District Court, C.D. California · September 16, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10634947

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** September 16, 2024
- **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/10634947

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WALTER LEE COLE, ) Case No. 22-cv-00695-JVS-JC
)
12 )
Petitioner, )
13 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
v. ) CONCLUSIONS, AND
14 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF
RON BROOMFIELD, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
15 ) JUDGE
)
16 Respondent. )
___________________________________
17
18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of
19 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
20 (“Petition”), the parties’ submissions in connection with Petitioner’s “Notice for
21 Court to Take Judicial Notice of Petitioner” (“Request for Judicial Notice”) and
22 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition (“Motion to Dismiss”), and all of the
23 records herein, including the July 3, 2024 Report and Recommendation of United
24 States Magistrate Judge (“Report and Recommendation”) and Petitioner’s filings
25 of August 26, 2024, which are construed as his objections to the Report and
26 Recommendation (“Objections”). The Court approves and accepts the Report and
27 Recommendation. The Court has further made a de novo determination of those
28 portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. The
1 || Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
2 || the United States Magistrate Judge and overrules the Objections, which raise the
3 || same contentions previously raised in Petitioner’s opposition to the Motion to
4 || Dismiss.!
5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request for Judicial Notice is granted in
6 || part and denied in part (see Report and Recommendation at 2-3 n.2), the Motion to
7 || Dismiss is granted and the Petition and this action are dismissed.
8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the
9 || Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on Petitioner and counsel
10 || for Respondent.
1] LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
12
13 | DATED: September 16, 2024 [ya
14 ewe UV, [eo -
15 v /
16 HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 'To the extent the Objections request that the Court take judicial notice of Brown v.
27 || Atchley, 76 F.4th 862 (9th Cir. 2023), or other public documents properly subject to judicial
notice, such request is granted, and the Court has taken into account the documents referenced
28 || and/or attached to the Objections.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10634947. Public record. Not legal advice.