UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 31, 2012
NATHAN HALL, PETITIONER,
RANDY GROUNDS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING 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 Petition, all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's four sets of Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and has made a de novo determination. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
In his Objections, First Amended Objections, and two Supplemental Objections, Petitioner echos and essentially restates the arguments made in the Petition. Those arguments lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner's request is denied as an evidentiary hearing is not required in this case. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011)(AEDPA "requires an examination of the state court-decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at the same time i.e., the record before the state court."); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) ("[I]f the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.").
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. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.
2. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.
3. The Clerk shall serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties.
4. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.