Kinzie Gene Noordman v. James E. Tilton

Filing 42

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 37 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved 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

KINZIE GENE NOORDMAN,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

v.
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. ED CV 09-0409 JFW (JCG)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

17
18

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

19 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections to the
20 Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo
21 determination.
22

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

23 Reply (in many instances verbatim), and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the
24 Report and 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: June 25, 2012

10

____________________________________

11

HON. JOHN F. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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