1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DVONTAE LAROME PINK, No. 1:24-cv-00449-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 15 APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 16 AND CLOSE CASE CARLOS ARCE, Warden, 17 Docs. 23, 24 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Dvontae Larome Pink is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 302. 24 On March 4, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 25 grant respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition with prejudice for failure to comply 26 with

(d)’s one-year limitations period, failure to exhaust Ground Two, and 27 failure to state a claim as to Grounds One and Two. Docs. 23, 24. Those findings and 28 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 1 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the 2 deadline to do so has expired. 3 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 4 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 5 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court turns to whether a 7 certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 8 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 9 only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 11 the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 12 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 13 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 14 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain 15 procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 16 reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 17 that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.”

18 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 19 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition deserves 20 encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 21 appealability. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2025, Doc. 24, are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 23, is granted; 5 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 7 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ April 30, 2025 4h : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28