Burgess v. Rios

Filing 43

ORDER CONSTRUING Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings and Recommendations as Objections to the Findings and Recommendations 41 ; ORDER RE: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS - are ADOPTED IN FULL 40 ; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motions for an Order to Show Cause Re: Transfer 35 , 36 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/19/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
COREY BURGESS,
9
Petitioner,
10
11
12

v.
HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS,

13

Respondents.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv—777-AWI-SKO-HC
ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS
OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 41)
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 40)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: TRANSFER (DOCS. 35, 36)

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

21

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and

22

303.

23

The matter was referred to the Magistrate

On January 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

24

recommendations that Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief

25

be denied.

26

Petitioner by mail on the same date and informed the parties that

27

objections could be filed within thirty days of service, and any

28

reply to objections could be filed within fourteen days of the

The findings and recommendations were served on

1

1

filing of any objections.

2

On January 29, 2013, Petitioner filed a document entitled,

3

“Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

4

Recommendations,” in which he stated he had been transferred to

5

Florence, Colorado, and not to another institution.

6

7.)

7

and set aside the findings and recommendations.

8

The Court thus CONSTRUES Petitioner’s motion as objections to the

9

findings and recommendations which are directed to the District

10
11

(Doc. 41,

In the motion, Petitioner requested that the Court vacate
(Id. at 19.)

Judge.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

12

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

13

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

14

considered the objections.

15

is no need to modify the findings and recommendation to deny the

16

motions based on the points raised in the objections.

17

finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

18

record and proper analysis.

The undersigned has determined there

The Court

19

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

20

1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 8, 2013

21
22

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2) Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief in the form of

23

an order to show cause regarding transfer are DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:
0m8i78

March 19, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2