1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER GRIMES, Case No. 2:21-cv-05735-MWF-PD

12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER

ACCEPTING REPORT AND

13 v.

ADOPTING, FINDINGS,

14 CONCLUSIONS, AND BRIAN KIBLER, Warden,

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

15 Respondent. UNITED STATES 16 MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

17

APPEALABILITY

18

19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 20 records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge (“Report”), the Objections to the Report, the video lodged by Petitioner, 22 and the Supplemental Statement of Decision. The Court has engaged in a de 23 novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. 24 Having viewed the video lodged by Petitioner, the Court concludes that it does 25 not show that any finding of fact made by the California Court of Appeal 26 regarding the events depicted in the video was erroneous. The Court accepts 27 28 ! || the Report and the Supplemental Statement of Decision and adopts them as 2 || its own findings and conclusions. 3 Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial 4 || showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its 5 || procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in 6 || this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. 7 || Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2008); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 4738, 484 8 || (2000). Accordingly, the Petition is denied with prejudice. 9 10 DATED: December 9, 2021

12 ‘ 8 UNITED STATES DISRRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28