Williams v. Sherman et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting re 16 Report and Recommendation; denying Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis's R&R; and (2) DENIES Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus.When a district co urt enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A c ertificate of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Under this st andard, the petitioner must demonstrate that "reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slac k v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48384 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the Courts conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner's claims and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 2/12/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Chris Anthony Williams,

Case No.: 17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
Stuart Sherman, et al.,

15

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND

Respondents.

16

(2) DENYING PETITIONER’S WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS

17

(Doc. Nos. 1, 16)

18
19

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Joseph Williams’ writ of habeas corpus.

20

(Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for a Report

21

and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R recommends (1) approving and

22

adopting the R&R; and (2) dismissing Williams’ habeas petition. (Id. at 9.) The parties

23

were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 9, 2018. (Id. at 9–10.)

24

Williams filed a statement of non-objection. (Doc. No. 17.)

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

26

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make

27

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]”

28

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
1
17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL

1

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,

2

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need

3

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

4

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment;

5

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s R&R. Having

7

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

8

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’s R&R; and (2)

9

DENIES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

10

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus

11

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to

12

appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate

13

of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of

14

the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003)

15

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that

16

“reasonable jurists could debate whether [] the petition should have been resolved in a

17

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to

18

proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (citation and internal

19

quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the

20

Court’s conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s claims and therefore DECLINES

21

to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: February 12, 2018

24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL