Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

 In fact, on October 18, 2007, the Findings and Recommendation was returned to the Court as 1

undeliverable with a notation “Inmate Gone - Forwarding Time Expired.” (Court Doc. 16.) Pursuant to Local Rule

83-182(f) each party is under a continuing duty to inform the Court of any change of address. Absent such notice,

service of documents at the prior address of record of the party is effective service. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PANFILO SALINAS-ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00457 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 15]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On October 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. 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.

1

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. 

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 1, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for 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 present case, the Court finds that reasonable th

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: January 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2