From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haynes v. Gipson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
May 29, 2015
CV 09-1663-DMG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. May. 29, 2015)

Opinion

          Kevin Haynes, Petitioner, Pro se, San Luis Obispo, CA.

          For Robert Horel, Respondent: Rama R Maline, LEAD ATTORNEY, CAAG - Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA.


          ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

         JUDGMENT

         Pursuant to the Order Accepting Report and Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice.


Summaries of

Haynes v. Gipson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
May 29, 2015
CV 09-1663-DMG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. May. 29, 2015)
Case details for

Haynes v. Gipson

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN HAYNES, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, WARDEN, Respondent

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

Date published: May 29, 2015

Citations

CV 09-1663-DMG (PJW) (C.D. Cal. May. 29, 2015)