Hendricks v. Long
Filing
28
ORDER and AMENDED JUDGMENT signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/12/15: This court's order and judgment 26 , 27 are vacated. Petitioner's motion for extended time 23 is granted. The findings and recommendations filed 9 /25/15, are adopted in full. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and because duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-0768 MCE AC P (which was dismissed with prejudice on 6/12/15. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
OLIE EUGENE HENDRICKS,
12
No. 2:15-cv-0564 GEB AC P
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
DAVID LONG,
15
ORDER and
AMENDED JUDGMENT
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following this court’s order and entry of judgment on
19
October 22, 2015, the court received petitioner’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 23,
20
within which to file his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations filed
21
September 25, 2015. Petitioner filed his objections, ECF No. 24, contemporaneously with his
22
motion for extended time. Accordingly, the court vacates its order and judgment entered October
23
22, 2015, grants petitioner’s request for extended time, and considers the substance of petitioner’s
24
objections.
25
The screening of the petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
26
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed
27
findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all
28
parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen
1
1
days. Petitioner has now filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
2
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
3
court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including consideration of petitioner’s newly-
4
filed objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and
5
recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1. This court’s order and judgment entered October 2, 2015, ECF Nos. 26, 27, are
8
vacated.
2. Petitioner’s motion for extended time, ECF No. 23, is granted.
9
10
3. The findings and recommendations filed September 25, 2015, are adopted in full.
11
4. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and
12
because duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-0768 MCE AC P (which was dismissed with prejudice
13
on June 12, 2015).
14
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
15
6. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.
16
§ 2253.
17
Dated: November 12, 2015
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?