Pablo Hernandez v. Brenda Cash, Warden
Filing
33
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Dean D. Pregerson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 29 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is appro ved and accepted; 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice; and 3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether": (1) "the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right"; and (2) "the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (bem)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PABLO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
v.
TIMOTHY E. BUSBY, Warden,
Respondent.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-0160 DDP (JCG)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the
18 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s “Exhibit A,” which
19 the Court construes as Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation
20 (“Objections”), and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
21
The Objections fail to demonstrate that Petitioner exhausted his state court
22 remedies by presenting his federal claims to the California Supreme Court, and
23 lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
24
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
25
1.
The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
26
2.
Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action
27
28
without prejudice; and
3.
The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
1
1
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the
2 Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it
3 debatable whether”: (1) “the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
4 constitutional right”; and (2) “the district court was correct in its procedural
5 ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court
6 declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
7
8
9
10
DATED: _May 30, 2012__
11
____________________________________
12
HON. DEAN D. PREGERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
