Gonzales v. Matevousian, 1:18-cv-00499-DAD-SKO. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181113731
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 19, 20) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Petitioner Robert Gonzales is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. On July 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending th
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 19, 20) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Petitioner Robert Gonzales is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. On July 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending tha..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 19, 20)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Petitioner Robert Gonzales is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
On July 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that petitioner's motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 20.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 20) are adopted in full; and
2. Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 19) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
