Poole v. Mimms

Filing 6

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation 4 and Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 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

1:14-cv-00806 LJO MJS HC
GARY DALE POOLE,

12
v.

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
(Doc. 4)

14
15

MIMMS,
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 June 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation

21

that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

22

claim. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any

23

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. No

24

objections were filed.

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. Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the

27

entire

28

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.

file,

the

Court

concludes

that

the

1

Magistrate

Judge's

Findings

and

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The Findings and Recommendation issued June 2, 2014, is ADOPTED IN
FULL;

4

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

5

3.

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

484.

12

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

13
14
15

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

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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2