Eric Robinson v. J. Pickett

Case 2:20-cv-00291-MCS-PD Document 80 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:6059

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC ROBINSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-0291-MCS (PD) 12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF J. PICKETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND (2) 15 Respondent.

DENYING APPLICATION FOR 16 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Amended Report”), the Objections to the Amended Report, and the Supplemental Statement of Decision. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Amended Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts both the Amended Report, with the non-material modification that at page three, line 19, “trial counsel” is stricken and replaced with “appellate counsel,” see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the Supplemental Statement of Decision and adopts them as its own findings and conclusions. Accordingly, the Petition is denied with prejudice.

Case 2:20-cv-00291-MCS-PD Document 80 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:6060 1 Petitioner also seeks a certificate of appealability. For the reasons || stated in the Amended Report and in the Supplemental Statement of | Decision, the Court finds that he has not made a substantial showing of the || denial of a constitutional right, and therefore a certificate of appealability is || denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2): Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, || 5387 U.S. 322, 336 (2008).

8 | DATED: February 18, 2022 4, 10 MARK C. SCARSI 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE