Eric Robinson v. J. Pickett

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-00291-MCS-PD Document 80 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:6059

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ROBINSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-0291-MCS (PD)

12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 J. PICKETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND (2) 15 Respondent. DENYING APPLICATION FOR 16 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 18

19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 20 records on file, the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United 21 States Magistrate Judge (“Amended Report”), the Objections to the Amended 22 Report, and the Supplemental Statement of Decision. The Court has engaged 23 in a de novo review of those portions of the Amended Report to which 24 Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts both the Amended Report, with 25 the non-material modification that at page three, line 19, “trial counsel” is 26 stricken and replaced with “appellate counsel,” see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 27 and the Supplemental Statement of Decision and adopts them as its own 28 findings and conclusions. Accordingly, the Petition is denied with prejudice. Case 2:20-cv-00291-MCS-PD Document 80 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:6060

1 Petitioner also seeks a certificate of appealability. For the reasons 2 || stated in the Amended Report and in the Supplemental Statement of 3 | Decision, the Court finds that he has not made a substantial showing of the 4 || denial of a constitutional right, and therefore a certificate of appealability is 5 || denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2): Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 6 || 5387 U.S. 322, 336 (2008). 8 | DATED: February 18, 2022 4, 10 MARK C. SCARSI 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28