Ross v. Arnold
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 3 Pending Motion; and ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
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-00762 LJO MJS (HC)
ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,
12
ORDER ADOPTING
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION
14
15
AND
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING
TO
ISSUE
A
CERTIFICATE
OF
APPEALABILITY
v.
13
FINDINGS
ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
[Doc. 9]
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 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation
21
that the petition be DISMISSED as successive. This Findings and Recommendation was
22
served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)
23
days of the date of service of the order. Neither party filed objections.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has
25
conducted a de novo review of the case. Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the
26
entire
27
Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.
28
///
file,
the
Court
concludes
that
the
1
Magistrate
Judge's
Findings
and
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
The Findings and Recommendation issued May 22, 2015, is ADOPTED;
3
2.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;
4
3.
All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT (ECF No. 3); 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
right.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
September 11, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?