1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES LEE CROW, No. 1:25-cv-00508-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 14 v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Doc. 8 17 CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 18 Respondent. 19

20 21 Petitioner James Lee Crow is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred 23 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On May 12, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 25 dismiss the petition. Doc. 8. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties 26 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 27 service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de ene ene EI EE II I RIE IIE IIE IED

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

(2003). Ifa 7 || court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 8 || jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 9 | claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 10 | proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While 11 | the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 12 | than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his... part.” Miller-El,

. 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 15 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition is deserving 16 | of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 17 | denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 12, 2025, Doc. 8, are adopted in 20 full; 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 25 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 27 Dated: _ June 19, 2025 4h | | 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE