Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SAESEE v. VIRGA, 1:10-cv-0814-AWI-SKO-HC. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120514490 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 11, 2012
Latest Update: May 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 22) ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1) ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. On March 15, 20
More

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 22)

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On March 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied, judgment be entered for Respondent, and the Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. These findings and recommendations were served on all parties on the same date. The findings and recommendations advised that objections could be filed within thirty days. Although the period for filing objections has passed, no party has filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and

2)The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer