1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER LOPEZ, No. 2:22-CV-1032-DJC-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under

. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On September 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on the parties, and which contained 22 notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. See ECF 23 No. 12. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to 25 be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 26 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the 27 Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner 28 can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. 1 | § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a 2 | certificate of appealability may issue under

“only if the applicant has 3 | made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. A | § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which 5 || issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate 6 | should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 7 || procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can 8 | show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 || correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable 10 | whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 11 | v. Woodford,

(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

| 473,

(2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s 13 | findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of 14 | appealability is not warranted in this case. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 10, 2025, ECF No. 17 | 12, are adopted in full. 18 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is denied. 19 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 21 99 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 | Dated: _October 31, 2025 Donel J Cob tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28