Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01138/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01138-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles DeRosa
Respondent
Edmund Prescott
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMUND PRESCOTT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

CHARLES DEROSA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01138-LJO-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 11, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter

judgment. These Findings and Recommendation were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. On

September 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time. On

October 11, 2007, the court granted Petitioner an additional thirty

(30) days within which to respond. To date, the parties have not

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:07-cv-01138-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 12/04/07 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

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 concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation are supported by

the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 11,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment; 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 th

present case, the Court finds that reasonable 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.

b9ed48Dated: December 4, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01138-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2