Sunderland v. Dawson

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/3/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Arellano, S.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DERRECK E. SUNDERLAND, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16 17 JAMES D. HARTLEY, Acting Warden, 18 Respondent. 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 22 On February 17, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 23 recommended the petition be DISMISSED with prejudice on multiple grounds. The Magistrate 24 Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings 25 and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 26 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and 27 no party has filed objections. 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-CV-00083 LJO GSA HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #15] ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

1

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
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd

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 and having considered the objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 17, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment; and 4. As this petition challenges a parole decision, a certificate of appealability is not required. Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 April 3, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2