Sisco v. McDonald

Filing 25

AMENDED ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/7/15 ADOPTING IN FULL 21 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING Petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus; and DECLINING 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 ERIC M. SISCO, 12 No. 2:12-cv-1804 JAM AC P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 M. McDONALD, 15 AMENDED ORDER Respondent. 16 17 This order supersedes the court’s order of January 6, 2015 (ECF No. 23). 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 24, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 24, 2014, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s application for federal habeas corpus is denied; and 4 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2253. 6 DATED: January 7, 2015 7 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?