Nazario-Baez v. Batista
| Decision Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14–1110 (FAB). |
| Citation | 29 F.Supp.3d 65 |
| Parties | Ramiro NAZARIO–BAEZ, Plaintiff, v. Margarita BATISTA, et als., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Ramiro NAZARIO–BAEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
Margarita BATISTA, et als., Defendants.
Civil No. 14–1110 (FAB).
United States District Court,
D. Puerto Rico.
Signed July 1, 2014.
[29 F.Supp.3d 67]
Ramiro Nazario–Baez, Ponce, PR, pro se.
Joseph G. Feldstein–Del Valle, Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
BESOSA, District Judge.
A district court may refer a pending motion to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Loc. Rule 72(b). Any party adversely affected by the report and recommendation may file written objections within fourteen days of being served with the magistrate judge's report. Loc. Rule 72(d). See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made.” Ramos–Echevarria v. Pichis, Inc., 698 F.Supp.2d 262, 264 (D.P.R.2010); Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F.Supp.2d 189, 191–92 (D.P.R.2005) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980)). Failure to comply with this rule precludes further review. See Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30–31 (1st Cir.1992). Borden v. Secretary of H.H.S., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1987). In conducting its review, the court is free to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b)(1); Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.1985); Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.P.R.2003). Furthermore, the Court may accept those parts of the report and recommendation to which the parties do not object. See Hernandez–Mejias v. General Elec., 428 F.Supp.2d 4, 6 (D.P.R.2005) (citing Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, 334 F.Supp.2d 114, 125–126 (D.R.I.2004)).
On May 19, 2014, the United States magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 16), recommending that petitioner's motion for federal habeas corpus relief be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties had until June 30, 2014 to object to the R & R, and petitioner filed an objection on June 18, 2014. (Docket No. 19.)
The Court has made an independent examination of the entire record in this case and ADOPTS the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, petitioner's habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket No. 15) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ramiro Nazario–Baez, a prisoner at the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Maximum Security Institution in Ponce, and now petitioner in these proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was convicted after a non-jury trial in the Commonwealth Court of First Instance, Humacao Part, of first-degree murder, weapons law violations and conspiracy. (Docket No. 2 at 4). He was sentenced on July 6, 2007 to a term of
[29 F.Supp.3d 68]
imprisonment of 150 years by Honorable Bernardo Colon Barbosa. A petition for new trial under Rule 192.1 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure was filed with the trial court and denied on March 4, 2010. In that motion, petitioner raised matters related to the failure of the prosecution to have provided him with exculpatory materials, as well as newly discovered evidence. The denial of the motion was appealed. Petitioner appealed the sentence and on June 12, 2012, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. (Docket No. 2 at 5). In the appeal, petitioner attacked court rulings regarding allegedly coerced testimony, as well as charging the trial court with incorrectly weighing the evidence. Certiorari was denied on September 12, 2012. (Docket No. 2 at 7).
This matter is before the court on pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Ramiro Nazario–Baez on February 3, 2014. (Docket No. 2). He argues that after he was sentenced, a witness came forward and said he was coerced by the prosecutors, who paid him for his inculpatory testimony. He again argues that the prosecution failed to produce evidence favorable to the defendant, that is, that a witness was paid for his testimony.
Aside from the conviction in the Humacao court, petitioner was also sentenced in the Commonwealth court, Ponce Part, on March 1, 2013 to a term of imprisonment of two years. The charges there are unrelated to the subject of the petition. Petitioner does not attack the performance of his trial counsel nor does he allege that he received inadequate representation of counsel during the criminal proceedings.
Respondents Margarita Batista and The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a motion to strike or dismiss the petition for habeas corpus on April 21, 2014. (Docket No. 15). Apart from noting that petitioner presents no substantive legal arguments upon which to base the petition, respondents argue that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Docket No. 15 at 1–2, 5). Ultimately, respondents are correct and my report and recommendation reflects my concurrence with their terse argument.
A federal court will consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus, when a petitioner asserts that his conviction is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Lyons v. Brady, 666 F.3d 51, 55 (1st Cir.2012); Romero–Hernandez v. Matias–De Leon, 796 F.Supp.2d 290, 292 (D.P.R.2011). “It is commonly said that ‘mere’ errors under state law in the admission of evidence are not recognizable under federal habeas review. This means that the question is not whether the admission of the evidence was state-law error, but whether any error rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair that it violated the Due Process Clause.” Kater v. Maloney, 459 F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir.2006); Reyes v. Puerto Rico, 977 F.Supp.2d 107, 108–09 (D.P.R.2013); Collanzo v. Gerry, 2010 WL 428960 at *3 (D.N.H. Jan. 29, 2010).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) reads thus:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial