1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CALDERON, Case No. 5:20-cv-01960-RGK-PD

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING, FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, UNITED STATES 15 Respondent. MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND 16 DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 17

18

19 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 20 records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to that Report. The Court has 22 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner 23 has objected. The Court accepts the Report and adopts it as its own findings 24 and conclusions. 25 Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its 27 procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28

(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

|| 322, 336 (2008); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). Accordingly, the 2 || Petition is dismissed with prejudice. 3 4 DATED: February 28, 2021. “9 Resrgnuas ° UNITED SFATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28