TERRONES v. HEDGPETH, ED CV 11-969-GHK (PJW). (2012)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20120622894
Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. KING, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the 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
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. KING, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the 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 J..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
GEORGE H. KING, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the 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 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 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 11(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Source: Leagle
