The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THE PETITION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. 18]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On December 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. 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 February 5, 2009, 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. This Court agrees that Petitioner's state petition concerned the rate at which Petitioner could obtain good time credits; An issue of state law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 12, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the petition is GRANTED;
3. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice; 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, without prejudice, as unexhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...