1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASAD MUHAMMAD, No. 2:23-cv-02517-DC-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 GISELLE MATTESON, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11) 16 17 Petitioner Asad Muhammad is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss the federal habeas petition (Doc. 22 No. 10) be granted and this action be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his habeas 23 claims by first presenting them to the highest state court prior to seeking federal habeas relief. 24 (Doc. No. 11.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and 25 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 26 service. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. 27 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 1 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 3 | issue certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 4 | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 5 | Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 6 | issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 7 | aconstitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 8 | procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 9 | certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 10 | a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 11 | debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 12 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 13 | court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, 14 | the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 19 No. 10) is granted; 20 3. This action is dismissed; 21 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: November 7, 2024 RY Os Dena Coggins 26 United States District Judge 27 28