Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00042-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Meeks
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
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

The court notes that the copy of the findings and recommendations served on Petitioner 1

was returned by the United States Postal Service. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service on a

party at their address of record is fully effective.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ANTONIO MEEKS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07 CV 0042 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE DISMISSAL OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 10, 11]

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 December 6, 2007, 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. 

1

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

Case 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 13 Filed 02/11/08 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

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 findings and th

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 

December 6, 2007, are a adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to prosecute;

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 13 Filed 02/11/08 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 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 13 Filed 02/11/08 Page 3 of 3