Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00968/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00968-9/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

HAROLD KENT SUTTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY J. MALFI, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00968-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 26)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter

judgment in favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendation

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of that order. On November 20, 2007, Petitioner filed objections

to the Findings and Recommendation.

//

/

Case 1:05-cv-00968-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 28,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent;

and,

4. It is further ORDERED that the court declines to issue a

Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should be

granted where the applicant has made “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e.,

when “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong”; Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9 Cir. th

2006) (same). In the present case, the Court finds that

reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the

state courts’ decision denying Petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus were not “objectively

unreasonable.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:05-cv-00968-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00968-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3