Jack W Dunigan v. M Yarborough

Filing 87

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND (2) DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Christina A. Snyder for Report and Recommendation (Final) 67 . (rp)

Jack W Dunigan v. M Yarborough

Doc. 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has made a de novo review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent's Answer, Petitioner's Traverse, all of the records herein and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"). // // // // // // v. M. YARBOROUGH, Respondent. JACK W. DUNIGAN, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 04-00498-CAS (VBK) ORDER (1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND (2) DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability ("COA");1 and (3) Judgment be entered denying and

dismissing the Petition with prejudice.

DATED: 9/1/10

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.
1

2