Rolando Asola v. Kathleen Dickinson

Filing 29

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Michael W Fitzgerald for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 25 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is a pproved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROLANDO ASOLA,
Petitioner,

12
13
14

v.
VIMAL SINGH, Warden,
Respondent.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-4865 MWF (JCG)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

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

18 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections to the
19 Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo
20 determination. The Court understands the Report, p.6, line 3, to mean that trial
21 counsel had no basis for making an objection for the new trial motion.
22

Petitioner’s Objections reiterate the arguments made in the Petition and

23 Traverse, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and
24 Recommendation.
25

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

26

1.

The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;

27

2.

Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action

28

with prejudice; and
1

1

3.

The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

2

Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the

3 Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
4 constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v.
5 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate
6 of appealability.
7
8
9

DATED: January 8, 2013

10

____________________________________

11

HON. MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2