(HC) Davison v. Unknown ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE BRIAN DAVISON, No. 1:21-cv-01388-DAD-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 UNKNOWN, PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 5) 16 17 18 Petitioner Ronnie Brian Davison is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) 20 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 21 and Local Rule 302. 22 On September 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that the pending petition be dismissed due to petitioner’s 24 failure to exhaust his claims for federal habeas relief by first presenting them to the highest state 25 court. (Doc. No. 5.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner at his 26 address of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 27 (14) days of service. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do 28 so has passed. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 5 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 6 | corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal 7 | 1s only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 8 | U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 9 | reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability 10 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 11 of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 12 || was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the 13 || present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that 14 | the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to 15 | proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 12, 2021 a aL, A a anys 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28