UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 4, 2012
JESSIE DEE PRITCHETT,
AUDREY KING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 7) ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S ) SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1) ORDER REFERRING THE PROCEEDING BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DIRECT THE FILING OF A RESPONSE TO THE REMAINING CLAIM
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
On October 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations to dismiss Petitioner's second, third, and fourth claims without leave to amend because they were state law claims and to refer the proceeding back to the Magistrate Judge to direct the filing of a response to the remaining claim in the petition. The findings and recommendations were served by mail on Petitioner on the same date. The findings and recommendations informed Petitioner that objections were due within thirty days of service.
Although the deadline for filing objections has passed, no objections have been filed.
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. The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file. The Court finds that the report and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1) The findings and recommendations filed on October 17,
2012, are ADOPTED in full; and
2) The first, second, and third claims in the petition are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
3) The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge to direct the filing of a response to the remaining claim in the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.