Ordway v. Miller

Filing 40

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation to Deny Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/14/14. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:11-cv-00616 LJO MJS HC
PATRICIA ANNE ORDWAY,

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.

13

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A

14
15

[Doc. 39]

MILLER, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

20

On May 30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation

21

that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This Findings and

22

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

23

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Neither party filed

24

objections.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

supported by the record and proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendation issued May 30, 2014, is ADOPTED;

3

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

4

3.

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

10

484 (2000). In the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable

11

whether the petition was properly denied. Petitioner has not made the

12
13
14

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 14, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2