Mendoza v. Cate
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/10/15 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/3/15 79 are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's MOTION to DISMISS 73 is DENIED; and The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §2253.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-1710 MCE DAD P
v.
ORDER
MATTHEW CATE,
15
Respondents.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas
17
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 3, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
20
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations, and petitioner has filed a reply.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 3, 2014 (ECF No. 79), are ADOPTED in
3
full;
4
2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 73) is DENIED; and
5
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §
6
7
8
2253.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2015
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?