1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO CASTRO, No. 1:19-cv-00323-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary, California PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Department of Corrections and CORPUS 15 Rehabilitation, (Doc. No. 12) 16 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner Pedro Castro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to

. On July 29, 2019, the magistrate judge assigned to 20 the case issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of the petition on its merits. 21 (Doc. No. 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained 22 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service 23 of that order. No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 26 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 28 a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 1 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 2 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 3 | § 2253. If, as here, a court denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 4 | certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 5 | constitutional right.”

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 6 | establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 7 | should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 8 || deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack vy. McDaniel,

(2000) 9 | (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). 10 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find that the court’s 11 | determination that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 12 || deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate 13 | of appealability. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 12), are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied with prejudice; 18 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case; and 19 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 8, 2019 a al, A 5 anys 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28