From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paul v. Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 29, 2011
Case No. CV 10-0071 JVS (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV 10-0071 JVS (JCG)

09-29-2011

TRACY VAUGHN PAUL, II, Petitioner, v. KELLY HARRINGTON, 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 "Petition for Rehearing Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc," which the Court construes as 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.

In his Objections, Petitioner essentially restates the arguments made in support of ground one of the Petition. Those arguments lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. To the extent that Petitioner's Objections include a request for an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner's request is denied as an evidentiary hearing is not required in this case. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) ("[I]f the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.").

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.

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. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.

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

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

4. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.

HON. JAMES V. SELNA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Paul v. Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 29, 2011
Case No. CV 10-0071 JVS (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Paul v. Harrington

Case Details

Full title:TRACY VAUGHN PAUL, II, Petitioner, v. KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 29, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV 10-0071 JVS (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2011)