Sanchez v. Rackley

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Denying without Prejudice Respondent's 14 Motion to Dismiss, Denying Petitioner's 21 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, and Referring Matter back to Magistrate Judge signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/21/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE GUERRA SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND
REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00604-LJO-EPG-HC

RONALD RACKLEY,

15

Respondent.

16
(ECF Nos. 14, 21, 23)
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. On February 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and
20 Recommendation that recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied without
21 prejudice. (ECF No. 23). This Findings and Recommendation was served on the parties and
22 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of
23 service of that order. To date, the parties have filed no objections, and the time for doing so has
24 passed.
25

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

26 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that
27 the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no
28 need to modify the Findings and Recommendation.

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on February 24, 2017 (ECF No. 23) is
ADOPTED IN FULL;

3
4

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

5

to renewing the motion after the Court rules on the merits of the petition;

6

3. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 21) is DENIED; and

7

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 21, 2017

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill ____
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2