ORDER

SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.

This habeas case, which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") on December 5, 2016. The Report recommends that the court deny with prejudice Petitioner's habeas corpus petition, as he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. Petitioner filed an objection to the Report.1

Petitioner objects to the Report's finding that the state did not fail to disclose impeachment evidence for witnesses Roman Medina, Jesus Cardenas, and Michael Livermore. Petitioner contends that this determination ignores the circumstantial evidence that each of these witnesses received lenient sentences after testifying. The court, however, disagrees. A multitude of factors may influence a sentence imposed by a court; therefore, the sentence that these witnesses received does not establish that the state offered them plea deals in exchange for testifying in Petitioner's case. Moreover, Petitioner's objection mischaracterizes the Report's finding. The Report determined that the record reflects that the jury was informed that each of these witnesses hoped their testimony in Petitioner's case would be taken into consideration for their own sentence. Further, the Report states that during the state habeas review the defense attorneys who represented Medina, Cardenas, and Livermore when they were sentenced each testified that their clients did not receive a deal from the state before he testified. Additionally, the state prosecutor submitted an affidavit stating that the state did not offer, promise, or guarantee leniency to the witnesses in exchange for their testimony. Given the overwhelming amount of direct evidence, the Report correctly determined that Petitioner failed to establish that the prosecutor made any plea deals to Medina, Cardenas, or Livermore in exchange for testifying in Petitioner's case. The court, therefore, overrules Petitioner's objection.

Having reviewed the file, Report, record, applicable law, and conducting a de novo review of Petitioner's objection, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1); and dismisses with prejudice this action.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.2 The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), unless he has been granted IFP status by the district court.

It is so ordered.