1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON JOSEPH SNOW, No. 1:23-cv-00937-ADA-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 14 PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABIILTY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 7) 16 17 Petitioner Aaron Joseph Snow is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 23, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that the Court dismiss the petition as unexhausted. (ECF No. 7.) The findings 22 and recommendations contained notice that Plaintiff had twenty-one days within which to file 23 objections. (Id. at 3.) That deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not filed objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 26 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a 28 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 1 | and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell,

, 335— 2 | 36 (2003). Where, as here, a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 3 | the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if 4 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 5 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 6 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). Here, the Court 7 | finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s decision to dismiss the petition debatable 8 | or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 23, 2023, (ECF No. 7), are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 1), is dismissed without 13 prejudice; 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 15 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 17 1g | IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ August 22, 2023 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28