Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00616-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miller
Respondent
Patricia Anne Ordway
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA ANNE ORDWAY,

Petitioner,

v.

MILLER, Warden,

Respondent.

1:11-cv-00616 LJO MJS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 39]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 

that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This Findings and 

Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Neither party filed

objections.

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 is 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Case 1:11-cv-00616-LJO-MJS Document 40 Filed 07/14/14 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 30, 2014, is ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (in order to obtain a 

COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; 

and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). In the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable 

whether the petition was properly denied. Petitioner has not made the 

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00616-LJO-MJS Document 40 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 2