1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLEVELAND ROLLARSON, No. 1:24-cv-01527-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 ON HABEAS CORPUS, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. 5) 17 18 Petitioner Cleveland Rollarson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 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 January 23, 2005, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 that recommended dismissing the petition. Doc. 5. On February 24, 2025, petitioner filed 23 objections. Doc. 6. 24 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 26 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 27 proper analysis. 28 / / / 1 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather 2 | an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335-36 3 | (2003);

. Ifa court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 4 | issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 5 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 6 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 7 | Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 8 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 9 | existence of mere good faith on his... part.” Miller-El,

. 10 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 11 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 12 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 13 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 14 | appealability. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2005, Doc. 5, are 17 ADOPTED in full; 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 20 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. _ 24 Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28