Harris v. Gipson

Filing 43

JUDGMENT dated *4/21/2014* pursuant to order, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2014. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM JAMES HARRIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2846-LKK-AC (HC)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

CONNIE GIPSON,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

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.

20

On January 3, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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. Neither party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

25

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

26

ORDERED that:

27
28
1

1

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 3, 2014, are adopted in full1;

2

2. Respondent’s March 21, 2013 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted in full;

3

3. Petitioner’s June 26, 2013 Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 25) is denied;

4

4. Petitioner’s August 14, 2013 Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 32) is denied;

5

5. Petitioner’s August 14, 2013 motion styled as “Motion and Request for Service of

6

Subpoena Duces Tecums” (ECF No. 33) is denied;

7
8

6. Petitioner’s September 3, 2013 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 35) is
denied;

9

7. The Clerk of court is directed to close this case.

10
11

8. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §
2253.

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

1

By this order, the court corrects a typographical error in footnote 6 on page 5 at line 22 and
confirms that petitioner’s conviction became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) on
May 1, 2000.
2