Lopez v. Runnels, et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 08/09/10 ORDERING that petitioner's 79 Motion to Entertain Second Petition is DENIED; petitioner's 80 Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED w/o prejudice; COA should not issue in this action. (Benson, A.)

(HC) Lopez v. Runnels, et al

Doc. 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. D. L. RUNNELS, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 8, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MANUEL GOMEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0543 JAM DAD P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is denied;

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2010 are adopted in full; 2. Petitioner's March 31, 2010 motion to entertain second petition (Dkt. No. 79)

3. Petitioner's Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 80) is dismissed without prejudice; and 4. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's June 8, 2010 findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. DATED: August 9, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2