Thompson v. Hill

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ALLEN C. THOMPSON,

9
10
11
12

Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:13-cv-02094-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

RICK HILL, Warden,
Respondent.

(Doc. 18)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
On July 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she
recommended that the Court dismiss the petition as untimely. The findings and recommendations,
which were served on the parties on the same date, provided that objections could be served within
thirty days. On August 4, 2014, Petitioner filed objections. On August 27, 2014, after reviewing

21

Petitioner’s objections, the record as a whole, and applicable law, the Court adopted the findings and

22

recommendations and granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. The Clerk of Court

23
24
25
26
27
28

entered judgment for Respondent.
On February 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Objections to Findings and
Recommendations.” Following review of the document, the Magistrate Judge determined that its
substance indicated that Petitioner intended to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the caption, “Objections to Findings and
1

1

Recommendations” be disregarded. The Magistrate Judge then analyzed the document as a motion

2

for reconsideration and determined that Petitioner alleged no basis by which the Court could grant

3

relief.

4

Accordingly, on March 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

5

recommending that the Court deny the motion for reconsideration. The findings and

6

recommendations, which were served on the parties on the same date, provided that objections could

7

be served within thirty days. Neither party filed objections.

8
9
10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the
entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and
recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

11

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed March

12

16, 2015, be adopted in full, and the motion for reconsideration be denied. The Court DECLINES to

13

issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 15, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2