Opinion
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND (2) DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has made a de novo review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), Respondent's Answer, Petitioner's Reply and Objections, all of the records herein and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Amended Report").
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts and adopts the Amended Report and Recommendation, (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"); and (3) Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.
Under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), a COA may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a Certificate of Appealability under §2253(c), a habeas petitioner must show that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further'." Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). After review of Petitioner's contentions herein, this Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a COA.