ORDER

JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 As Petitioner's objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner's objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

The Court has reviewed the record and Magistrate Judge Rateau's recommendations de novo, and they are adopted.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Petitioner's most strenuous objection to the Report and Recommendation seems to be that it "should have included a reference to Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963)." (Doc. 23 at 3). However, the Report and Recommendation correctly relies on the controlling Supreme Court authority, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). And in any event, the Report and Recommendation implicitly addresses the key prongs of the Mendoza-Martinez test applicable to this case. See Report and Recommendation at 8-11. A de novo review of the record and pertinent authority reveals that explicitly citing Mendoza-Martinez would not materially change the analysis in the Report and Recommendation.

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner's § 2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.