Castano v. Cowen, 18-12488-RGS. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20200117868
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2020
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal's thorough and comprehensive Report, specifically: (1) that Grounds two and three of the petition raise alleged errors of state law that this court has no jurisdiction to correct; and (2) that Grounds one and four of the petition fail to identify any aspect of the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC) analysis that can be said to have been contrary to or an unreasonab
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal's thorough and comprehensive Report, specifically: (1) that Grounds two and three of the petition raise alleged errors of state law that this court has no jurisdiction to correct; and (2) that Grounds one and four of the petition fail to identify any aspect of the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC) analysis that can be said to have been contrary to or an unreasonabl..
More
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal's thorough and comprehensive Report, specifically: (1) that Grounds two and three of the petition raise alleged errors of state law that this court has no jurisdiction to correct; and (2) that Grounds one and four of the petition fail to identify any aspect of the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC) analysis that can be said to have been contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law clearly established by the United States Supreme Court.1 Finally, I agree that there is no merit to Castano's perfunctory and unsupported claim of actual innocence (Ground five). See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998).2 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.3 Any request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Magistrate Judge correctly points to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (Ground one), and the pertinent discussion in United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203 (1st Cir. 2002) (Ground four), as defining the contours of the relevant and controlling precedential federal law.
2. Finally, as the Magistrate Judge notes, a federal habeas court has no jurisdiction to reduce a verdict pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. That power is solely the prerogative of the SJC.
3. Castano has filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation, nor has he asked for additional time to do so.
Source: Leagle
