Williams v. Moore

Full title: WILLIE ROYCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STEVE MOORE, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 25, 2007

CV F 05-00882 OWW DLB HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2007)

Opinion

CV F 05-00882 OWW DLB HC.

July 25, 2007

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, AND DENYING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. 20].

OLIVER WANGER, District Judge

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by John Paul Ward, esq.

On May 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.

On May 28, 2007, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

It is further ORDERED that the court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should be granted where the applicant has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," i.e., when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9^th Cir. 2006) (same). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the state courts' decision denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus were not "objectively unreasonable."

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 24, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. This terminates this action in its entirety; and

4. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.