Opinion
No. 1:12-CV-01777 DAD-MJS HC
03-30-2016
ROBERT A. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. G.D. LOUIS, Warden,, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABLITY
(Doc. No. 30)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied with prejudice. Those findings and recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the order. On March 24, 2016, petitioner filed his objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner's ten-page handwritten objections, the court concludes that the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections petitioner merely repeat his arguments which were considered by the assigned magistrate judge and fully addressed in the findings and recommendations. Petitioner's objections cite no legal authority but rather simply express petitioner's disagreement with the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue. In order to obtain a certificate of appealability a petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the petition was properly denied. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendation issued March 1, 2016, are adopted;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; and
3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30 , 2016
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE