Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01493-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY F. HIGNITE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIF U. S. )

DISTRICT COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

1: 05-cv-1493 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 17]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On May 6, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. No objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

Case 1:05-cv-01493-OWW-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/08/08 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

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Petitioner may seek to appeal from the judgment of the court in this case. Petitioner

cannot proceed on such an appeal absent a certificate of appealability. The controlling

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for

the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a

person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity

of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal

may not be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained

of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

In the present case, the court finds no denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a 

certificate of appealability will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

May 6, 2008, are a 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 to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:05-cv-01493-OWW-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/08/08 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 1:05-cv-01493-OWW-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/08/08 Page 3 of 3