Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00096/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00096-6/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)

---

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

RUDY ZUNIGA,

Petitioner,

v.

KINGS COUNTY,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-0096 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING

PETITION, WITH PREJUDICE, AS

UNTIMELY, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 21]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On July 18, 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. 

On July 31, 2008, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:08-cv-00096-OWW-DLB Document 23 Filed 09/12/08 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

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 18, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

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

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action; 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: September 11, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00096-OWW-DLB Document 23 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 2