1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COREY ROBERTSON, No. 2:24-cv-02541-DAD-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE PENDING PETITION WITHOUT 14 PATRICK COVELLO, PREJUDICE AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY AND 15 Respondent. ABEYANCE AS MOOT 16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 7) 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On December 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure 23 to prosecute, as well as his failure to comply with court orders, and that his motion for stay and 24 abeyance of the petition (Doc. No. 2) therefore be dismissed as moot. (Doc. No. 7.) 25 The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner at his address of 26 record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 27 after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 28 filed, and the time in which to do so has long since passed. Indeed, petitioner has not 1 communicated with the court in any way since filing his petition and motion for stay on 2 September 19, 2024. 3 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 In addition, having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also 7 declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no 8 absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the 10 court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing 11 of the denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies 12 habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the 13 court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable 14 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 15 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 16 Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable 17 jurists would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 18 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued December 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 7), are 21 ADOPTED in full; 22 2. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice due to petitioner’s lack of 23 prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders; 24 3. Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 2), is DENIED as moot; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 1 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 2 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _March 6, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28