1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN BRADLEY, No. 1:23-cv-00473-ADA-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 14 KISHA M. HALL, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 5) 16 17 Petitioner Steven Bradley is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital proceeding pro se 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On May 1, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the Court dismiss the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction and Petitioner’s 23 failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 5.) The findings and recommendations contained 24 notice that Petitioner had fourteen days within which to file objections. (Id. at 4–5.) That 25 deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not filed objections. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 28 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a 2 | writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 3 | and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335— 4 | 36 (2003). Where, as here, a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 5 | the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if 6 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 7 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 8 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 9 Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find that the Court’s dismissal of 10 | the petition is debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 11 | Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 1, 2023, (ECF No. 5), are 14 adopted in full; 15 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 1), is dismissed; 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 17 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 19 29 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: _ August 22, 2023 0 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28