Hughes v. People of the State of California

Filing 13

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 ; ORDER DISMISSING Petitioner's State Law Claims Without Leave to Amend 1 and REFERRING the Case Back to the Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/29/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11 BERNARD C. HUGHES,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-BAM-HC

12

ORDER RE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9)

13
14
15
16
17
18

Petitioner,
v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE
LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 1) AND REFERRING THE CASE
BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Respondent.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
20 U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge

21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
22

On January 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

23 recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s state law claims without
24 leave to amend, and to refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge
25 for further proceedings.

The findings and recommendations were

26 served on all parties on the same date.

The findings and

27 recommendations advised the parties that objections could be filed
28 within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing
1

1 of objections.

On April 6, 2015, Petitioner filed objections.

2 Although over fourteen days have passed since the filing of
3 objections, no reply to the objections has been filed.
4

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

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

The

6 undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has
7 considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there is
8 no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the
9 points raised in the objections.

The Court finds that the report

10 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
11

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

12

1.

The findings and recommendations filed on January 16, 2015,

13 are ADOPTED in full; and
14

2.

Petitioner’s state claw claims are DISMISSED without leave

15 to amend; and
16

3.

The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for

17 further proceedings.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: April 29, 2015
19
20

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2