From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinney v. Santoro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 8, 2023
2:23-cv-00416 DJC DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-00416 DJC DB P

09-08-2023

NATHANIEL MCKINNEY, Petitioner, v. KELLY SANTORO, Respondents.


ORDER

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 28, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2023, are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McKinney v. Santoro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 8, 2023
2:23-cv-00416 DJC DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2023)
Case details for

McKinney v. Santoro

Case Details

Full title:NATHANIEL MCKINNEY, Petitioner, v. KELLY SANTORO, Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 8, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-00416 DJC DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2023)