Rouser v. Soto, LA CV 15-2123 DSF (JCG). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160330e77
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Petitioner's Objections reiterate arguments made in the Petition and Reply, and lack merit for the rea
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination. Petitioner's Objections reiterate arguments made in the Petition and Reply, and lack merit for the reas..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
Petitioner's Objections reiterate arguments made in the Petition and Reply, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted;
3. Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice; and
4. 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
