UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 5, 2008
FRANCISCO COLON, PETITIONER,
N. DAWSON, ACTING WARDEN RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS UNNECESSARY
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On July 3, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.
On July 25, 2008, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 3, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;
3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent; and,
4. A certificate of appealability is unnecessary. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-1232 (9th Cir. 2005); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010-1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (no certificate of appealability required for denial of petition challenging parole or any other administrative decision by prison officials in making a determination regarding the execution of prisoner's sentence).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.