1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MACARIO VILLALPANDO, No. 2:25-cv-01437-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 8) 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Macario Villalpando is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 2, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that Petitioner’s petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 23 cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. No. 8.) The pending findings and recommendations were 24 served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 25 fourteen days after service. (Id. at 5.) On July 16, 2025, Petitioner filed objections to the pending 26 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner’s objections do not provide a basis upon 27 which to reject the findings and recommendations. 28 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 1 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 2 | including Petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 5 || issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 6 | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El □□ 7 | Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petition, the court may only issue a 8 | certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, a petitioner must 10 || establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 11 | should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 12 | deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) 13 | (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 n. 4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds 14 | Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to 15 | justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the 16 | determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the 17 | court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 2, 2025 (Doc. No. 8) are 20 ADOPTED; 21 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without 22 prejudice for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim; 23 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 27 | Dated: _ November 24, 2025 RY Oc Dena Coggins 28 United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28