1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ANGEL CORRAL, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01719-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 PATRICK COVELLO, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 28) 16 ) ) 17 Petitioner Michael Angel Corral is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 22 Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 28. Those findings and 23 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner has not filed objections, and 25 the deadline to do so has expired. 26 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 27 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 28 1 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather 3 | an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335-36 4 | (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 5 || issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 6 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 7 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 8 | Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 9 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 10 | existence of mere good faith on his .. . part.” Miller-El,

. 11 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 12 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 13 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 14 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 15 | appealability. 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2025, Doc. 28, are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED. 20 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28