GUZMAN v. PRICE, CV 15-254-CAS (LAL). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160518756
Visitors: 19
Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: May 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY CHRISTINA A. SNYDER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing thi
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY CHRISTINA A. SNYDER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and
3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.1 Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
FootNotes
1. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R.App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029. 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).
Source: Leagle
