SMITH v. ADAMS, EDCV 10-1119-GW (PJW). (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20141114892
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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, records on file, and the Amended 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 Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recomme
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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, records on file, and the Amended 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 Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommen..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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, records on file, and the Amended 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 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 Final Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that it 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
