1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRECILIANO TOMAS CHAIDEZ, No. 1:21-cv-01192-NONE-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

15 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE Respondent. CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 16 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 (Doc. No. 5) 18 19 Petitioner Preciliano Tomas Chaidez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 20, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 24 cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. No. 5.) The findings and recommendations were served 25 petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the 26 date of service of the findings and recommendations. To date, no objections have been filed, and 27 the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 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 holds the findings 3 | and recommendation to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 5 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 6 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 7 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 9 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 10 | manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 11 further.’” Slack vy. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 12 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 13 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 20, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 21 closing the case and then to close the case; and 22 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai 25 Dated: _ October 12, 2021 wee Te oF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28