Williams v. Hill

Filing 24

ORDER Re: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 17 ), ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court's Dismissal Of His Petition As Successive (Doc. 16 ) And Declining To Issue A Certificate Of Appealability, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/27/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:12-cv-01807-LJO-BAM-HC 12 ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 17) 13 Petitioner, v. 14 15 RICK HILL, Respondent. 16 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S DISMISSAL OF HIS PETITION AS SUCCESSIVE (DOC. 16) AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged his homicide conviction. 21 The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 23 On June 2, 3014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations to deny the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 25 and to decline to issue a certificate of appealability. The 26 findings and recommendations were served on all parties on the same 27 date. The findings and recommendations advised the parties that 28 objections could be filed within thirty days and replies within 1 1 fourteen days after the filing of objections. 2 Petitioner filed objections. On August 1, 2014, Although over fourteen days have 3 passed since the filing of objections, no reply to the objections 4 has been filed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 6 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. The 7 undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has 8 considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there is 9 no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the 10 points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the report 11 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed on June 3, 2014, are 14 ADOPTED in full; and 15 2. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and 16 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 27, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?