Opinion
2:21-cv-01456-KJM-JDP (HC)
11-14-2022
BENJAMIN THOMAS TREMPER, Petitioner, v. PATRICK COVELLO, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections have been filed.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Determinations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”).
Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “debatable among jurists of reason,” could be resolved differently by a different court, or is “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). For the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations, petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on any of the claims raised in his petition. Such finding would not be debatable among reasonable jurists. Accordingly, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11, 2022, are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's petition, ECF No. 1, is denied;
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and
4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253.