UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 2, 2011
JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON, AKA WILLIAMS WINN, PETITIONER,
F. X. CHAVEZ, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Christina A. Snyder United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and has made a de novo determination. The Court approves and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
In his Objections, Petitioner contends that, to the extent he failed to properly present his claims to the California Supreme Court, he was prevented from doing so by obstacles he encountered at the prison where he was incarcerated. (See Objs. at 2; Pet.'s Decl. at ¶¶ 1-16.) But his arguments concerning exhaustion do not affect the outcome because the Magistrate Judge addressed Petitioner's claims on the merits. As for Petitioner's substantive arguments (Objs. at 13-17), Petitioner essentially restates those made in the First Amended Petition. Those arguments lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties.
3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.