Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01373-4/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD L. McKENZIE,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES YATES, et al,,

Respondents.

No. 2:05-cv-01373-JKS-KJM

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 23, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Petitioner’s objection raises two points. (1) That he is entitled to equitable tolling

because he suffered strokes before being diagnosed as such. The magistrate judge correctly

computed that the 1-year limitation of AEDPA had expired April 20, 2001, prior to the earliest

date that Petitioner alleges he first started suffering from health problems, September 2001. (2)

That he is actually innocent. The magistrate judge correctly noted that Petitioner failed to

Case 2:05-cv-01373-JKS-KJM Document 23 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

McKenzie v. Yates, 2:05-cv-01373-JKS-KJM 2

produce any evidentiary support for the factors enunciated in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298

(1995).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. This case is closed.

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) (“reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Dated: December 3, 2007

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01373-JKS-KJM Document 23 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2