Garcia v. Clark

Filing 169

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/3/14 ADOPTING IN FULL 157 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 149 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO FLAVIO GARCIA, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. No. 2:10-cv-0968 GEB DAD P ORDER KEN CLARK, Warden, 15 Respondent. 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 October 18, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After several extensions 23 of time, 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 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 October 18, 2013, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s June 17, 2013 request for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 4 Proc. 60(b) and for an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 149) is denied; and 5 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 6 2253. 7 Dated: March 3, 2014 8 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?