Fanady v. Evans

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 23 , Denying Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus, Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment in Favor of Respondent, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/9/2009. CASE CLOSED.(Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Philip M. Brooks, Esq. 17 On December 12, 2008, 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. 21 On January 7, 2009, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and 22 Recommendation. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 24 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's 25 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is 26 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 27 questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 28 1 / [Doc. 23] v. NICHOLAS E. FANADY, Petitioner, 1:08-cv-00963-OWW-DLB (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 12, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent; and, 4. 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: February 9, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2