(HC) Sholl v. Unknown ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN SHOOL, II, No. 2:20-cv-00958-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Brian Shool, II (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The matter 18 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 302. 20 On June 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner has 23 not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 25 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 /// 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 4 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 5 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 6 Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 7 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 8 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 9 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 10 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 11 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 12 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 13 ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 14 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 15 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 16 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF 17 No. 5), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 26, 2020 (ECF No. 5) are adopted in 20 full; 21 2. Petitioner’s action is DISMISSED; 22 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2253; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: August 30, 2020 27 28