1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH ROBERT LUGO, No. 1:25-cv-00917 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 R FISHER, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 11) 16 17 Keith Robert Lugo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus brought pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 15, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 22 cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on 23 Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after 24 service. On September 18, 2025, Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. 12.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and 28 proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections are not persuasive. For example, he appears to rely on 1 | Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

, 378-79 (2024), to suggest that this Court 2 | should not defer to the state parole board. (Doc. 12 at 1-2.) Loper Bright is inapposite. There, the 3 | Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc.,

4 | (1984), and held instead that federal courts should not defer to federal agency interpretations of 5 || ambiguous statutes. No such interpretation is at issue here, nor is this a case about federal court 6 | deference to a federal agency. 7 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 8 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 9 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 10 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 12 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 13 || manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 14 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

| 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 16 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 17 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 18 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2025 (Doc. 11) are 21 ADOPTED IN FULL. 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 23 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 24 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 07 | Dated: _ October 3, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28