UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 24, 2012
RANDY LEE SODERSTROM, PETITIONER,
M. LEA, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dolly M. Gee United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the records and files herein, the original Report and Recommendation and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's Objections. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the recommendations to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, as set forth in the Amended Report and Recommendation.
In light of the foregoing, the Court also DENIES as moot Petitioner's pending Motion for Review of Magistrate's Non-Dispositive Ruling [Doc. # 136] because Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and application for certificate of appealability were both duly filed. The Court also DENIES each of Petitioner's four pending motions: (1) Motion for Review of NonDispositive Ruling or Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal: In Camera Review of Prosecutor's File [Doc. # 134]; (2) Motion for Review of Magistrate's Non-Dispositive Ruling in Denying In Camera Review of Wayne Corder's Probation File [Doc. # 135]; (3) First Amended Motion for Review of Magistrate's Non-Dispositive Ruling: In Camera Review of Wayne Corder's Probation File [Doc. # 137]; and (4) First Amended Motion for Review of Magistrate's Non-Dispositive Ruling: In Camera Review of Prosecutor's File [Doc. # 138]. None of the Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.