Vigeant v. Macomber, CV 15-628-GW (PJW). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190122g97
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Final Report to which Petitioner has objected. The C
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Final Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Co..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Final Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the Final Report and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.1
Further, for the reasons stated in the Final Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that there is a typo on page 21, line 18 of the Final Report wherein the magistrate judge refers to "Hernandez" instead of "Pettigrew." Other than that, the Court accepts the Final Report and Recommendation as written.
Source: Leagle
