ANDERSON v. ADAMS, CV 09-9229-CAS (LAL). (2015)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20150422827
Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2015
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. Petitioner did not file Objections challenging the analysis set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and
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. Petitioner did not file Objections challenging the analysis set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and ..
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.
Petitioner did not file Objections challenging the analysis set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
2. Judgment by 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
