Canete v. Montgomery, CV 15-316-RGK (JCG). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20180502f55
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 01, 2018
Latest Update: May 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY R. GARY KLAUSNER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the R
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY R. GARY KLAUSNER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the Re..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the Report and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Further, 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 and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Source: Leagle
