1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN JOE WHITE, No. 1:21-cv-01644-JLT-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

14 FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

15 Respondent. (Doc. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Adrian Joe White is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 29, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be as an unauthorized successive 22 petition. (Doc. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served petitioner and contained 23 notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the 24 findings and recommendations. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so 25 has passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 28 the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 3 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 4 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 6 | the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 7 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 10 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 11 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 12 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 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 November 30, 2021 (Doc. 6) 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 close the case; and 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 14, 2022 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28