Gabriel H S Baldwin v. A Hedgepeth et al

Filing 121

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Gary A. Feess for MOTION to Stay 24 , Report and Recommendation (Issued) 115 . IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. (rh)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

7
8
9
10
11

GABRIEL BALDWIN,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
A. HEDGEPETH, et al.,

15

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 07-05501-GAF (VBK)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the First

18

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), the records

19

and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United

20

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”).

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and

2

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to

3

issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”).1

4
5
6

DATED: March 27, 2013
GARY A. FEESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), a COA may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a
Certificate of Appealability under §2253(c), a habeas petitioner must
show that “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’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)(internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct.
1029 (2003). After review of Petitioner’s contentions herein, this
Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the
issuance of a COA.
2