1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TODD MORSE, No. 2:21-cv-01667-DAD-KJN (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

14 CRAIG KOENIG, PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 14) 16

17 18 Petitioner Robert Todd Morse is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 1, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. No. 14.) The 23 magistrate judge considered each of petitioner’s nine claims and found that “no error of 24 constitutional magnitude occurred” and that the alleged errors in the underlying state court 25 criminal proceedings, when considered cumulatively, “did not render petitioner’s defense ‘far less 26 persuasive’, nor did they have a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s 27 verdict.’” (Id. at 37.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and 28 ///// 1 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of 2 service. (Id. at 37–38.) No objections have been filed and the time to do so has since passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, court finds the findings and 5 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 7 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 8 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 9 petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 10 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 11 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 12 further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 13 While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 14 “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” 15 Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 16 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 17 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented 18 are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 19 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to 20 issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 1, 2022 (Doc. No. 14) are 23 adopted in full; 24 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: _ September 8, 2022 Dal A. 2, aye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28