Landon Ryan Johnson v. D. Asuncion

Filing 30

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 20 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (gr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LANDON RYAN JOHNSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) ) D. ASUNCION, Warden, ) Respondent. ) _________________________________ ) NO. EDCV 16-1976-JLS (KS) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 21 Report and Recommendation (“Objections”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 23 which objections have been stated. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the 24 findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\ 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: November 20, 2017 _____________________________________ JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?