ROCHA v. JANDA, EDCV 12-1243-GW (LAL). (2015)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20151125b24
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING 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. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dis
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING 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. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dism..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING 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. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Final 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 Final 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
