1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO PERALTA TORRES, No. 1:23-cv-01266-KES-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 14 SERGIO ROMANCE, et al., DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 Respondents. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (ECF No. 8) 17 18 Petitioner Sergio Peralta Torres is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 14, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 23 pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s order. (ECF No. 8.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be 25 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) To 26 date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 27 /// 28 /// 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 3 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 5 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 6 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 7 | allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 8 | U.S.C. § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could 9 | debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 10 | different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 11 further.’” Slack vy. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

| 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 13 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 14, 2023 (ECF No. 8) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ March 21, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28