(HC) Cardenas v. Adler, No. 1:2009cv01793 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss; ORDERED to ***DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY***, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/23/2011. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Cardenas v. Adler Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MANUEL CARDENAS, 1:09-cv-01793-LJO-MJS (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v. [Doc. 19] 12 13 NEIL ADLER, Warden, Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 16 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 On July 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 19 that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This Findings 20 and Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be 21 filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner did not object 22 to the Findings and Recommendation. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has 24 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 25 Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported 26 by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 13, 2011, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 4 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 5 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 6 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) In order to obtain a 8 COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable 9 whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; 10 and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 11 was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484. In 12 the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the 13 petition was properly denied with prejudice. Petitioner has not made the 14 required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: b9ed48 August 23, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
