Shelley Lamont Small v. Ernest Roe, No. 2:2002cv00324 - Document 134 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge A. Howard Matz for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 130 . The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. (rh)

Download PDF
Shelley Lamont Small v. Ernest Roe Doc. 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 SHELLEY LAMONT SMALL, Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 ERNEST ROE, Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 02-00324-AHM (VBK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), the records and files herein, 19 and 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // the Third Report and Recommendation of the United States Dockets.Justia.com 1 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and 2 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to 3 issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”).1 4 5 DATED: December 17, 2012 6 7 A. HOWARD MATZ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), a COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a Certificate of Appealability under §2253(c), a habeas petitioner must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). After review of Petitioner’s contentions herein, this Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a COA. 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.