Robie Hull v. Julie Ward

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DIRECTING Clerk of Court to enter Judgment; and DECLINING to issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/3/08. CASE CLOSED.(Verduzco, M)

(HC) Robie Hull v. Julie Ward

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 JULIE WARD, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 On December 4, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that 18 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was 19 served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 20 days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed 21 objections. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 23 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 24 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. 27 FULL; 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ROBIE HULL, Petitioner, v.

CV F 06-00715 LJO DLB HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING; DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT; AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. 18] /

The Findings and Recommendation issued December 4, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

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

2. 3. 4.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent; and, The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should be granted where the applicant has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," i.e., when "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong"; Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the state courts' decision denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus were not "objectively unreasonable."

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 February 3, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2