Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01496/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01496-3/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 - 08cv1496

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT CHRISTOPHER ANZALONE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1496 JM(WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

LARRY SMALL,

Defendant.

On September 21, 2010 Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo entered a Report and

Recommendation Denying First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“R & R”). The R &

R, expressly incorporated herein, thoroughly and thoughtfully analyzed Petitioner’s claims and

recommended the denial of the Petition on the merits. Petitioner has filed objections to the R & R

(“Objections”). Respondent did not file a reply to the Objections. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1),

this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

In his Objections, Petitioner sets forth essentially the same arguments raised in the Petition and

addressed in the R & R. Instead of responding to these arguments a second time, the court adopts the

R & R in its entirety. 

As of December 1, 2009, Rule 11 of the Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides that: “The

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to

the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on

Case 3:08-cv-01496-JM-WVG Document 37 Filed 11/04/10 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 - 08cv1496

whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific

issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a

certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the

time to appeal.”

Upon review of the record, the court concludes that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied.

See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

In sum, the court adopts the R & R and denies a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01496-JM-WVG Document 37 Filed 11/04/10 Page 2 of 2