(HC) Tremper v. Covello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN THOMAS TREMPER, No. 2:21-cv-01456-KJM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). 28 ///// ] Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. A certificate of appealability may issue under 3 || 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 4 | constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate 5 || which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A certificate of 6 || appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “debatable among 7 || jurists of reason,” could be resolved differently by a different court, or is “adequate to deserve 8 || encouragement to proceed further.” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) 9 || (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). For the reasons set forth in the findings 10 || and recommendations, petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on any of the 11 | claims raised in his petition. Such finding would not be debatable among reasonable jurists. 12 || Accordingly, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11, 2022, are adopted in full; 15 2. Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1, is denied; 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and 17 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 18 | § 2253. 19 | DATED: November 14, 2022. 20 21 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28