Smith v. Moss
Filing
30
ORDER Adopting 29 Findings and Recommendations that the Court Deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/27/18. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM ALLEN SMITH,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
STUART SHERMAN, Warden,
No. 1:15-cv-01696-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE
COURT DENY THE PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent.
16
(Doc. 29)
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
21
On February 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations in
22
which she recommended that the Court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of
23
appealability. The Findings and Recommendations, which was served on Petitioner on the same
24
date, provided that objections could be served within thirty days. Although thirty days have
25
passed, Petitioner has not filed objections.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed
27
the entire file de novo, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by
28
the record and proper analysis.
1
1
Based upon the foregoing,
2
1) The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 29), filed February 22, 2018, are
3
ADOPTED in full;
4
2) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
5
3) The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 27, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?