Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00882/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00882-4/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)

---

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

WILLIE ROYCE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVE MOORE,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00882 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN

FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, AND DENYING

ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 20]

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by John Paul Ward, esq. 

On May 24, 2007, 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 May 28, 2007, 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 1:05-cv-00882-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 07/25/07 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

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 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 and citations omitted)); Hoffman v.

Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9 Cir. 2006) (same). In the present case, the Court finds that th

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.”

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 24, 2007, 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. 

This terminates this action in its entirety; and

4. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00882-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2