Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01426/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01426-4/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

MARVIN JAY GRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE EVANS,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01426 AWI DLB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

DISMISSING PETITION, WITH PREJUDICE,

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 14] 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. 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. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 26, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

Case 1:07-cv-01426-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/16/08 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

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this

action in its entirety; and 

5. 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, the Court does not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable

whether the petition was properly dismissed, with prejudice, as time-barred under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01426-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2