(HC) Manago v. Walker, No. 2:2008cv02857 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/22/09 GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss; ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations in full; certificate of appealability issued; CASE CLOSED. (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Manago v. Walker Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEWART MANAGO, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2857 GEB DAD P vs. JAMES WALKER, Warden, Respondent. ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On November 3, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 24 25 26 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can 2 demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different 3 court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 4 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 5 Here, petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the 6 following issue(s) presented in the instant petition: whether petitioner’s habeas petition is time- 7 barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2009, are adopted in 10 full; 11 2. Respondent’s March 2, 2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is granted; 12 3. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and 13 4. This action is closed. 14 Dated: December 22, 2009 15 16 17 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
