1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:23-cv-00530-DAD-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 ROB BONTA, HABEAS PETITION DUE TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Respondent. AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 16 (Doc. No. 5) 17 18 Petitioner Ronald Eugene James is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 6, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to petitioner’s failure to 23 comply with court orders and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 5.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto 25 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, petitioner has not 26 filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 5 | issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 6 | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 7 | Cockrell,

(2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 8 | only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 9 | denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 10 | relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 11 | should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 12 | petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 13 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 14 | McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 15 | would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 16 | debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 5) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without 21 prejudice; 22 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. *5 Dated: _ August 9, 2023 Dal A. 2, axel 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28