Howell v. Cash

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/11/14. 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

1:13-cv-01518 LJO MJS HC
RONNIE EARL HOWELL,

12
13
14

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
TO
DISMISS
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

BRENDA CASH, Warden,
Respondent.

15

A

[Doc. 16]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On December 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and
Recommendation that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted and the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as moot. This Findings and Recommendation
was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)
days of the date of service of the order. Neither party filed objections to the Findings and
Recommendation.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has
conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

28
1

1

supported by the record and proper analysis.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

The Findings and Recommendation issued December 16, 2013, is
ADOPTED;

5

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

6

3.

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14
15
16

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

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

February 11, 2014

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