Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00264/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00264-2/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

RICHARD MONTANEZ, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

DERREL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-00264 LJO SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT,

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On March 27, 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. 

On April 10, 2008, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

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 is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Case 1:07-cv-00264-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 27, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent;

and,

4. 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. 2006) (same). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable th

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: April 15, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00264-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2