-VBK Wayne D Winchester v. People of State of California, No. 2:2011cv01639 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge A. Howard Matz, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Report and Recommendation (Issued) 17 (lmh)

Download PDF
-VBK Wayne D Winchester v. People of State of California Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 WAYNE D. WINCHESTER, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-01639-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 the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 20 Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 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 14, 2011 6 7 A. HOWARD MATZ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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.