1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN BRADLEY, No. 2:23-cv-00527-DAD-DB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BRANDEN PRICE, HABEAS PETITION DUE TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 4) 16 17 Petitioner Steven Bradley is a civil detainee 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 December 12, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 22 petitioner’s failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 4.)1 The findings and recommendations 23 were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 24 within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections 25 and the time in which to do so has passed. 26 1 Those findings and recommendations were issued after petitioner’s application for federal 27 habeas relief was dismissed with leave to amend and petitioner was directed to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or the required filing fee along with an amended petition within sixty 28 days (Doc. No. 3) and failed to respond in any way to that order. 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 □□□ 7 | Cockrell,

(2003). If a 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 December 12, 2023 (Doc. No. 4) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 21 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. *" | Dated: _ January 23, 2024 Dab A. 2, axel 25 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28