From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maxey v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 19, 2011
Case No. ED CV 10-0235 MMM (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. ED CV 10-0235 MMM (JCG)

11-19-2011

MICHAEL SCOTT MAXEY, Petitioner, v. R. HILL, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and has made a de novo determination. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

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.

Accordingly, having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.

2. The Clerk shall serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties.

3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.

HON. MARGARET M. MORROW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Maxey v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 19, 2011
Case No. ED CV 10-0235 MMM (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Maxey v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL SCOTT MAXEY, Petitioner, v. R. HILL, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 19, 2011

Citations

Case No. ED CV 10-0235 MMM (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2011)