Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01875-6/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

JAMES JOSEPH DURAN, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES POPE,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM

ORDER

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

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

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

On September 4, 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. No objections to the

findings and recommendations have been filed.

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

this Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear error. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 4, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 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)). To the extent federal

Case 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

Duran v. Pope, 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM 2

constitutional issues were raised before the California Courts on direct appeal or addressed or

deemed addressed on the merits by the California Courts in denying Petitioner’s petitions for

habeas relief before those courts, no reasonable jurist could find that the decisions were

“objectively unreasonable.”

Dated: November 30, 2007

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2