1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENZELL MAGIC METCALF, Case No. 1:25-cv-0607 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 JOHN DOE, Warden, COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (Doc. 10) 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 Denzell Magic Metcalf is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The magistrate judge preformed 20 a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 21 Cases and observed Petitioner “has only sought administrative relief” and “has not presented his 22 claims to the California courts, including the California Supreme Court, as required by the 23 exhaustion doctrine.” (Doc. 10 at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court 24 dismiss the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. (Id. at 3.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 26 any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 10 at 3.) The Court advised him that the “failure 27 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., 28 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file 1 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 2 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 4 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 6 | seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 7 | his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 8 | U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a 9 | certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 10 | constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 11 || establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 12 | should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 13 || deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) 14 | (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). In the present case, Petitioner did not 15 | make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance 16 | of acertificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 17 | Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 18 || encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 27, 2025 (Doc. 10) are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 27, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28