Cardenas v. Adler

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss; ORDERED to ***DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY***, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/23/2011. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
MANUEL CARDENAS,

1:09-cv-01793-LJO-MJS (HC)

10
Petitioner,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

11
v.

[Doc. 19]

12
13

NEIL ADLER, Warden,
Respondent.

14

/
15
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

16
17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

18

On July 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation

19

that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This Findings

20

and Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be

21

filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner did not object

22

to the Findings and Recommendation.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has

24

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

25

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported

26

by the record and proper analysis.

27

///

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendation issued July 13, 2011, is ADOPTED IN
FULL;

3
4

2.

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

5

3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

6

4.

The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

7

2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) In order to obtain a

8

COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable

9

whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right;

10

and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

11

was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484. In

12

the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the

13

petition was properly denied with prejudice. Petitioner has not made the

14

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
b9ed48

August 23, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-