ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

Before the Court are Petitioner's objections to the March 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin. (ECF Nos. 39, 42).

I. Background

On September 13, 2016, Petitioner Raul Arellano filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) (the "Petition"). On March 12, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Petition be denied because "Petitioner's four claims are not cognizable for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254." (ECF No. 15 at 25). On August 6, 2018, having received no objections to the March 12, 2018, Report and Recommendation, the Court issued an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and denying the Petition. (ECF No. 31). On October 24, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 40). On December 6, 2018, Petitioner filed objections. (ECF No. 42).

II. Ruling of the Court

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and considering the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly determined that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied.

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, "[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant."

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the petitioner's constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court finds that the issues raised by Petitioner in the writ are frivolous. The Court will not grant a certificate of appealability

III. Conclusion

The Court's August 6, 2018 Order (ECF No. 31) is VACATED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is adopted in its entirety and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall re-enter judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner and close the case.