Scott v. Sherman
Filing
35
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/7/19 ADOPTING in full 27 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability and DENIES petitioner's 33 motion to appoint counsel. CASE CLOSED(Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS CHARLES SCOTT,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-1957 JAM KJN P
v.
ORDER
STEWART SHERMAN, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas
17
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.
On May 2, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
20
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed
23
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
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 2, 2019, are adopted in full;
3
2. The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied;
4
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.
5
6
§ 2253; and
4. In light of this order, petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 33) is denied.
7
8
9
10
DATED: October 7, 2019
/s/ John A. Mendez____________
_____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?