Garcia v. Muniz, 2:16-CV-7606-MWF (LAL). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20180402833
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , 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. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing t
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , 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. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing th..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, 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.
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.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
