Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Osby v. Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 17, 2009

JACKIE OSBY, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN CLARK, WARDEN RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. 23]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 20, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. 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. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections.

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, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 20, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this action in its entirety; and

4. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (in order to obtain a COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the Court does not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly dismissed with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and for failure to state a cognizable claim. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090317

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.