Yeng v. Hill

Filing 14

ORDER Re: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 9 ), ORDER Dismissing Petitioner's State Law Claims Without Leave To Amend (Doc. 1 ), ORDER Referring The Matter Back To The Magistrate Judge For Ruling On Petitioner's Motion For A Stay (Doc. 12 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/29/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11 XIONG YENG,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM-HC

12

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9)

13
14

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE
LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(DOC. 1)

v.

15 RICK HILL, Warden,
16

Respondent.

17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR RULING ON
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY
(DOC. 12)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
On February 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and
recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s state law claims without
leave to amend.

The findings and recommendations were served on all

parties on the same date.

The findings and recommendations advised

the parties that objections could be filed within thirty days and
replies within fourteen days after the filing of objections.
Although the thirty-day period for the filing of objections has
1

1 passed, no objections have been filed.

However, after receiving an

2 extension of time to object, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay on
3 June 6, 2014, in which Petitioner sought to stay the claims that
4 will remain in the petition after the state claims are dismissed;
5 Petitioner seeks to exhaust state court remedies as to additional
6 claims.
7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),

8 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having

9 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report
10 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
11 Accordingly, the findings and recommendations will be adopted in
12 full.
13

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

14

1) The findings and recommendations filed on February 28, 2014,

15 are ADOPTED in full; and
16

2) Petitioner’s state law claims are DISMISSED without leave to

17 amend; and
18

2) The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for

19 consideration of Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings
20 pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
21
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: October 29, 2014
24

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2