1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE CASAREZ, No. 2:23-CV-0602-TLN-DMC 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 PEOPLE OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 18

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On June 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. The parties did not file any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court 3 | considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 4 | decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See

(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 5 | Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may be issued under 28 6 | U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 7 | constitutional right.”

(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 8 || appealability in dicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 9 | such □ certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 10 | procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) “that 11 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 12 | ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 13 | claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford,

(9th Cir. 14 } 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

,

(2000)). For the reasons 15 | set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of 16 | acertificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2023 (ECF No. 8) are ADOPTED IN 19 FULL; 20 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 21 comply with Court rules and orders; 22 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 24 | Date: August 4, 2023 /) fs 26 “ MN i Vek 27 Troy L. Nuhlep> United States District Judge 28