Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01013/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01013-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAL WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN C. MARSHALL,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01013-OWW-SMS (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

TERMINATE ACTION, AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 33]

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 9, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. 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 July 9, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01013-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 07/01/10 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

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate this action; and 

4. 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 for failure to state a cognizable claim

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01013-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2