Opinion
Case No. SA CV 15-1835 SVW (JCG)
06-14-2017
JUAN ESTRADA, JR., Petitioner, v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed: (1) the Petition; (2) the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"): (3) the Traverses filed before and after the filing of the R&R; (4) Petitioner's Objections to the R&R; and (5) the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
The post-R&R Traverse is identical to the Traverse filed before the R&R was issued, with the exception of very minor stylistic changes. [See Dkt. Nos. 8, 17.] The arguments in the Traverse were considered in the R&R and therefore warrant no further discussion here. [See Dkt. No. 14.]
Petitioner's Objections reiterate arguments made in the Petition and Traverse, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the R&R. [See Dkt. Nos. 14, 18.]
Petitioner expresses concern about the timeliness of his Objections. [Dkt. No. 18 at 1-2.] The Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner an extension of time to file objections by May 15, 2017. [Dkt. No. 16.] The Objections, which were filed May 10, 2017, are timely. --------
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R is approved and accepted;
2. Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice; and
3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the R&R, 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. DATED: 6/14/17
/s/_________
HON. STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE