Sarmiento v. Rackley

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/22/15. All claims in the petition are summarily dismissed except for petitioners challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction; and the court declines to issue the certificate of appealability.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL SARMIENTO, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0364 KJM CKD P v. ORDER RONALD RACKLEY, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 27, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 26 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 27, 2015, are adopted in full; and 3 2. All claims in the petition are summarily dismissed except for petitioner’s challenge to 4 the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction; and 5 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2253. 7 DATED: May 22, 2015. 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?