ORDER

STEPHEN P. FRIOT, District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts entered her Report and Recommendation in this matter on June 29, 2012, recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. no. 20 Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommended findings and conclusions. Doc. no. 21. The court reviews all objected to matters de novo.

Upon review, and having considered defendant's objections, the court concurs with the magistrate judge's determinations and concludes that it would not be useful to cite any additional arguments or authorities here.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roberts is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only upon making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that the issues movant seeks to raise are deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reasons, or subject to different resolution on appeal. See, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) ("[W]e give the language found in § 2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in [Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)], with due note for the substitution of the word `constitutional.'"). "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. When a prisoner's habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the prisoner's claims, "a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. Petitioner has not made the requisite showing; a certificate of appealability is DENIED.