(PC)Slavens v. Powell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SLAVENS, No. 2:20-cv-02448-TLN-KJN

Petitioner, v. ORDER

TERRY POWELL et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Robert Slavens (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 15, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the Findings and Recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such acertificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 7), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 15, 2021 (ECF No. 7), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED;

3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 2253; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

ITIS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2021 () “ | / } bh Troy L. Nunley □ 2 United States District Judge