Arroyo v. Harrington

Full title: ALBERTO ARROYO, Petitioner, v. K. HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 17, 2011

ED CV 10-0590 PSG (JCG) (C.D. Cal. May. 17, 2011)

Opinion

ALBERTO ARROYO, Petitioner, v. K. HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent. No. ED CV 10-0590 PSG (JCG) United States District Court, C.D. California. May 17, 2011

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.

         Petitioner's Objections generally parrot and rehash the arguments made in the Petition, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.

         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 denies Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability.