Ortega-Lopez v. Ryan et al

Filing 42

ORDER accepted and adopted Report and Recommendations re 26 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's 2254 Amended Petition(Doc.6) is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice; A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and the Clerk of the Court shall enter a judgment and close the file in this matter.. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 4/30/2014.(JKM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alejandro Ortega-Lopez,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-11-00618-TUC-JGZ

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United

16

States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner’s

17

habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 26.) As thoroughly explained

18

by Magistrate Judge Velasco, Petitioner is not entitled to relief as his petition is without

19

merit. As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion

20

reached by Magistrate Judge Velasco, Petitioner’s objections are rejected and the Report

21

and Recommendation is adopted.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability
must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying
the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of
appealability or state why a certificate should not issue."

Additionally, 28 U.S.C.

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court
must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A

1

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among

2

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves

3

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review

4

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court

5

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable

6

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

8

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is accepted and adopted;

9

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is denied and this case is dismissed

10

with prejudice;

11

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and

12

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this

13
14

matter.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2014.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-