Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00420/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00420-0/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 - 08cv420

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY SHAWN JANOE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-420 JLS (POR)

ORDER: DENYING

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION

FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 19.)

vs.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

Bobby Shawn Janoe filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On December 9, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court deny the petition. (Doc. No. 15.) Petitioner

did not file objections. Therefore, on February 2, 2009, the Court satisfied itself that there was no

clear error on the face of the record, and adopted Magistrate Judge Porter’s R&R. (Doc. No. 16.) On

February 19, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 18) and a motion for certificate of

appealability. (Doc. No. 19.) 

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2008). “A petitioner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of

his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack

Case 3:08-cv-00420-JLS-POR Document 20 Filed 02/24/09 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

1

 Petitioner argues that the certificate of appealability should issue because he “never received

a copy of the Report and Recommendation,” and therefore “cannot argue any objctions to the Report

and Recommendation in this brief.” (Memo. ISO Motion, at 3.) Even assuming that Petitioner

actually did not receive a copy of the R&R, reasonable jurists would agree that it was proper for the

Court to adopt the R&R.

- 2 - 08cv420

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of appealability

indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should not issue.

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

In this case, the pertinent legal question is whether the Court should have adopted Magistrate

Judge Porter’s R&R. Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

set forth the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. Since Petitioner did not object to the R&R,1

 the Rule states that the Court need

“only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory

Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

 Here, the certificate should not issue because reasonable jurists would agree that Magistrate Judge

Porter’s R&R did not contain clear error. Therefore, reasonable jurists would agree that the Court was

correct in adopting that R&R, denying the petition, and denying the request for an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's requests for a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2009

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00420-JLS-POR Document 20 Filed 02/24/09 Page 2 of 2