From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brinson v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 16, 2017
CASE NO. ED CV 14-1606-VBF (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. ED CV 14-1606-VBF (PJW)

06-16-2017

HIRAM BRINSON, Petitioner, v. K. HOLLAND, WARDEN, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING 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, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions.

Further, 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 and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

DATED: June 16, 2017.

/s/_________

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brinson v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 16, 2017
CASE NO. ED CV 14-1606-VBF (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2017)
Case details for

Brinson v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:HIRAM BRINSON, Petitioner, v. K. HOLLAND, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 16, 2017

Citations

CASE NO. ED CV 14-1606-VBF (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2017)