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)

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