Robertson v. Mariposa Court

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/10/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

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

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Case No. 1:15-cv-00322 LJO MJS (HC)
ROGER WAYNE ROBERTSON,

ORDER ADOPTING
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION

12

14
15

AND

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING
TO
ISSUE
A
CERTIFICATE
OF
APPEALABILITY

v.

13

FINDINGS

MARIPOSA COURT,

[Doc. 6]
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20

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

March

18,

2015,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

a

Findings

and

21

Recommendation that the petition be DISMISSED as duplicative. 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. On April 16, 2015,

24

Petitioner filed 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. Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the

27

entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate

28

Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendation issued March 18, 2015, is ADOPTED;

3

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

4

3.

All pending motions are DENIED as moot (Doc.5); and

5

4.

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. 473,

11

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

12

whether the petition was properly dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner has

13

not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

14
15
16

right.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 10, 2015

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