Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00528-5/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

DOUGLAS WRAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KEN CLARKE, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-00528-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 14)

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 25, 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 October 4, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to

extend time. On October 18, 2007, the court granted Petitioner an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. To date, the

parties have not filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00528-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 12/21/07 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

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 concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation are supported by

the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 25,

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. 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 th

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: December 20, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00528-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2