(HC) Velasquez v. Espinoza, No. 2:2018cv01995 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/18/2020 ADOPTING in full the findings and recommendations filed 9/22/2020; DENYING Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus; and the Court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASMINE MARIA VELASQUEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-1995 WBS KJN P v. ORDER JANEL ESPINOZA, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. Respondent did not file a reply. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 22, 2020, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and 4 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2253. 6 Dated: December 18, 2020 7 8 9 10 11 /vela1995.805hc 12 13 14 15 16 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.