United States v. Ruiz-Caro

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. JUAN ENRIQUE RUIZ-CARO, Movant.

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

Date published: May 1, 2015

2:07-cr-0450-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2015)

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. JUAN ENRIQUE RUIZ-CARO, Movant. No. 2:07-cr-0450-GEB-CMK United States District Court, E.D. California. May 1, 2015

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside or correct a criminal judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This matter was referred to a United States Magistraxte Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

         On March 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.¹

1 Although it appears from the file that the findings and recommendations were returned, the parties were properly served. It is the responsibility of the parties to keep the court apprised of their address of record at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

         The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and y the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

         Before a movant can appeal a decision from this court, a certificate of appealability must issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). See Fed. R. App. P 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 30, 2015, are adopted in full;

2. Movant's motion (Doc. 64 in the criminal docket) is dismissed as untimely;

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close companion civil case no. 2:12-cv-0211-GEB-CMK.