Owens v. Roe

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 87 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 77 Reques to Entertain Limited Remand; ORDER DENYING 80 Motion to Remand, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/2/2009. (Sondheim, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 CURTIS OWENS, 7 Petitioner, 8 9 10 E. ROE, 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 20, 2007, the Court entered judgment denying the petition 16 on its merits. (Doc. 54). 17 Subsequently, on appeal, Petitioner's counsel filed a Request to Entertain Limited Remand 18 and a Motion to Remand. (Docs. 77 & 80). On October 30, 2009, the Magistrate Judge assigned to 19 the case filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending that both motions be denied. (Doc. 20 87). The Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any 21 objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On November 22 19, 2009, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. 23 (Doc. 90). 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, 26 the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the 27 record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate 28 1 v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:03-cv-05327-LJO-BAK-SMS HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 87) ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO ENTERTAIN LIMITED REMAND (Doc. 77) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 80)

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 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

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 30, 2009 (Doc. 87), is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Petitioner's Request to Entertain Limited Remand (Doc. 77), and Motion to Remand (Doc. 80), are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 December 2, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2