UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 24, 2009
JAYMAR DODDS, PETITIONER,
A. HEDGEPATH, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On February 6, 2009, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed findings and recommendations recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 6) be granted and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because the claim contained in the petition is not fully exhausted, and because Petitioner does not state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. (Doc. 7). The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days. To date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Because Petitioner is challenging an administrative order of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation after a prison disciplinary hearing that resulting in Petitioner's placement in administrative segregation, no certificate of appealability is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 6, 2009 (Doc. 7), are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), is GRANTED;
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2), is DISMISSED; and
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file. This order terminates the action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.