1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE JOHN BOURAS, No. 2:17-cv-00649-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL MARTEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner George John Bouras (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On March 17, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on Petitioner and which contained that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner has not filed 24 any objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the Findings and 26 Recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is the Petitioner’s 27 responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 28 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the findings 2 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 4 | considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 5 || decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See

(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 6 || Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 8 || constitutional right.”

(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 9 | appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 10 || such acertificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 11 | procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 12 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 13 | ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 14 | claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford,

(9th Cir. 15 || 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)). For the reasons set forth in the 16 || Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 11), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of 17 || appealability is not warranted in this case. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 17, 2021 (ECF No. 11), are 20 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 21 2. Petitioner’s Petition fora Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; 22 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. □ 23 | 2253; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 ITIS SO ORDERED. 26 | DATED: May 3, 2021 ( jf 27 “ ! Vu 28 Troy L. Nunley 2 United States District Judge