Powe v. Biter
Filing
31
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/23/18 ADOPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 25 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDRE POWE,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-02639-GEB-GGH
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
MARTIN D. BITER,
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner brings this habeas corpus petition in pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter
18
was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
19
302(c)(17).
20
On January 4, 2018 the Magistrate issued Findings and Recommendations recommending
21
that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 25, to revisit earlier Findings and
22
Recommendations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) should be denied and
23
granted petitioner 14 days from the date of the Order to file any objections. ECF No. 21. In that
24
document the Magistrate informed petitioner that a failure to object could result in a waiver of his
25
right to appeal the District Court’s Order. No objections have been received.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
27
the District Judge has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the
28
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations the court ADOPTS the findings and
1
1
2
3
4
5
recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED;
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2018
6
7
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?