Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05320/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05320-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dimas Clemente Chavez
Petitioner
Gail Lewis
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMAS CLEMENTE CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

GAIL LEWIS,

Respondent.

 /

1:02-cv-05320 OWW DLB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT,

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 54]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. On March 24, 2010, an Amended Findings and

Recommendation was issued due to a processing error. 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. 

On March 31, 2010, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

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 is 

1

Case 1:02-cv-05320-OWW -DLB Document 56 Filed 04/19/10 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

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 Amended Findings and Recommendation issued March 24, 2010, 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 in favor of Respondent; 

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: April 16, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:02-cv-05320-OWW -DLB Document 56 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 2