Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01618/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01618-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERINEO SERRANO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

P.L. VASQUEZ, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

)

 )

1:06-cv-01618-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 10, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendation were served

on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that

order. On February 12, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-01618-LJO -DLB Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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 are 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:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 10, 2008,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent;

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) (a COA should be granted where

the applicant has made “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., when “reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong”; Hoffman v.

Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9 Cir. 2006) (same). In the th

present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists

would not find it debatable that the state courts’

decision denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus were not “objectively unreasonable.” 

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:06-cv-01618-LJO -DLB Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 3
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

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01618-LJO -DLB Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3