Groat v. Board of Prison Hearings

Full title: LORETTA LOU GROAT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Mar 30, 2011

EDCV 10-1511 RGK (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011)

Opinion

LORETTA LOU GROAT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS, et al., Respondents. No. EDCV 10-1511 RGK (JCG) United States District Court, C.D. California. March 30, 2011

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition ("Petition"), the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.

         Petitioner's Objections rehash arguments made in her Petition and misconstrue the Supreme Court's decision in Swarthout v. Cooke , 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). As the Court explained in Swarthout , the only federal due process right in the parole context is procedural and, here, Petitioner received all the process she was due under the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 863.bu

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.

         Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.