Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON HILLMON,

Petitioner,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1225 LJO SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

[Doc. 30]

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

UNNECESSARY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented to Richard Pfeiffer, Esq.

On May 19, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed

objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 19, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 31 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent; and,

4. A certificate of appealability is unnecessary. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d

1229, 1231-1232 (9 Cir. 2005); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010-1013 th

(9 Cir. 2004) (no certificate of appealability required for denial of petition th

challenging parole or any other administrative decision by prison officials in

making a determination regarding the execution of prisoner’s sentence). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 31 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 2