HARRIS v. UNKNOWN, CV 11-7511-PA (PJW). (2012)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20120510853
Visitors: 30
Filed: May 09, 2012
Latest Update: May 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY PERCY ANDERSON, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY PERCY ANDERSON, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of ..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
PERCY ANDERSON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Further, for the reasons stated in the Amended 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
