Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02711/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02711-2/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

HOWARD DONTUS LAROYCE

LEONARD,

Petitioner,

vs.

G. SALAS, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:06-cv-02711-JKS-EFB

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 February 21, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, 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 February 21, 2007, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

and

3. The Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment accordingly.

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) (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 could debate whether (or, for that matter,

Case 2:06-cv-02711-JKS-EFB Document 11 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 2
1

 While the failure to object to the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge

constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal factual findings, it does not, standing alone, constitute a waiver

of the right to appeal legal conclusions. Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146–47 (9th Cir. 2007);

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

1991).

ORDER

Leonard v. Salas, 2:06-02711-JKS-EFB 2

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

and citations omitted)).1

 Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be

addressed to the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.

Dated: February 21, 2008.

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02711-JKS-EFB Document 11 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2