Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01777/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01777-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.D. LOUIS, Warden,,

Defendant.

No. 1:12-CV-01777 DAD-MJS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABLITY

(Doc. No. 30)

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 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied with prejudice. Those

findings and recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be 

filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the order. On March 24, 2016, petitioner 

filed his 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, including petitioner’s tenpage handwritten objections, the court concludes that the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 

Case 1:12-cv-01777-DAD-MJS Document 32 Filed 03/30/16 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

recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections petitioner 

merely repeat his arguments which were considered by the assigned magistrate judge and fully 

addressed in the findings and recommendations. Petitioner’s objections cite no legal authority but 

rather simply express petitioner’s disagreement with the conclusions reached by the magistrate 

judge. 

In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue. In order to obtain a certificate of 

appealability a 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. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c); 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 denied. Petitioner has not made the 

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendation issued March 1, 2016, are adopted;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; and

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01777-DAD-MJS Document 32 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 2