1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDY LEE SCROGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00519 JLT CDB (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 13 DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO STEVE SMITH, CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 14 ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Respondent. 15 (Doc. 21)

16 17 Randy Lee Scroggins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with his 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that 21 the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied on the merits, and that the Court decline to issue a 22 certificate of appealability. (Doc. 21.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on 23 all parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. In addition, the Court 24 advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 25 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 26 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). No objections were filed and the 27 time to do so has passed. According to

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

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 7 | § 2253. If acourt denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 8 | appealability jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 9 || petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 10 || to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 11 | US. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 12 || demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 13 | 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 Petitioner should be 16 | allowed to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 17 | of aconstitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 18 | Thus, Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 14, 2025 (Doc. 21) are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ November 24, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28