Jamal C White v. John C Marshall

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSINGPETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and Decling To Issue Certificate Of Appealability, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/1/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

(HC) Jamal C White v. John C Marshall

Doc. 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 JOHN C. MARSHALL, 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 July 9, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. 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 2. 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAMAL WHITE, Petitioner, v.

1:09-cv-01013-OWW-SMS (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. 33] /

The Findings and Recommendation issued July 9, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL; The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

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

3. 4.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate this action; 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) (in order to obtain a COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the Court does not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 1, 2010 emm0d6

2