1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARNELL JAMES HAMMOND, No. 1:25-cv-00405-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 14 UNKNOWN, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 15 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 Doc. 11 17 18 Petitioner Darnell James Hammond is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 11, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 22 recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial 23 remedies. Doc. 11. The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained 24 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. To date, no 25 objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 28 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 2 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 4 | only incertain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 6 | the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 7 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain 10 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 11 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 12 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 13 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 11, 2025, Doc. 11, are ADOPTED 18 in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 21 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ October 11, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28