RUELAS v. LONG, CV 12-5991 ODW (JCG). (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20140326a02
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, 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. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, 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. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition a..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, 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. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Source: Leagle
