(HC) Magee v. Walker, No. 2:2009cv00047 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/10/09 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 21 are ADOPTED IN FULL; respondent's motion to dismiss 15 is GRANTED; a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE IN THIS ACTION. CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Magee v. Walker Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUNAKO MAGEE, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. JAMES WALKER, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-0047 MCE GGH P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of 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 October 14, 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. Petitioner 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, provides that the district 2 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 3 applicant. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant 4 has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 5 The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the 6 required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. 7 P. 22(b). 8 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s October 14, 2009, findings and 9 recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 10 right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 14, 2009, are adopted in full; 13 2. Respondent’s June 29, 2009, motion to dismiss (no. 15) is granted; 14 3. A certificate of appealability is not issued in this action. 15 Dated: December 10, 2009 16 17 18 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
