Molen v. Graber

Filing 25

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/5/17 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2016, are adopted in full; and petitioner's October 17, 2016 motion to reopen this case is DENIED.(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 JAMES O. MOLEN, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-2141 KJM CKD P v. ORDER CONRAD M. GRABER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that this 28 18 U.S.C. § 2241 action be reopened. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the 19 motion was referred on November 3, 2016 to the United States Magistrate Judge previously 20 assigned to this case. On November 7, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 22 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On December19, 2016, 24 petitioner 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 25 26 court has conducted a de novo review. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 27 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2016, are adopted in full; and 3 2. Petitioner’s October 17, 2016 motion to reopen this case is denied. 4 DATED: January 5, 2017. 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?