Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00322/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00322-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER WAYNE ROBERTSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MARIPOSA COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00322 LJO MJS (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING 

TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 6]

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 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and 

Recommendation that the petition be DISMISSED as duplicative. This Findings and 

Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On April 16, 2015, 

Petitioner 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. Accordingly, 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.

Case 1:15-cv-00322-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/11/15 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 18, 2015, is ADOPTED;

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

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot (Doc.5); 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) (in order to obtain a 

COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; 

and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). In the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable 

whether the petition was properly dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner has 

not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00322-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2