Smith v. Clark, CV 18-10454-JLS (PJW). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190708800
Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY JOSEPHINE L. STATON , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions. F
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY JOSEPHINE L. STATON , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions. Fu..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
JOSEPHINE L. STATON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions.
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 or that the court erred in its procedural ruling 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Source: Leagle
