Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel K. Chestang, et al v. Yahoo!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 5, 2013

DANIEL K. CHESTANG, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
YAHOO!, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action on April 15, 2011 and was proceeding on a third amended complaint ("TAC") filed on September 25, 2012. On December 6, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant's motion to dismiss the TAC be granted. That recommendation was adopted in full on February 14, 2013 by the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal together with a motion for certificate of appealability. A motion for certificate of appealability, however, is unnecessary in the instant action because this is not a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 1, 2013 motion for certificate of appealability is disregarded.

20130305

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.