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.

Corey Burgess v. Hector Alfonzo Rios

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 19, 2013

COREY BURGESS,
PETITIONER,
v.
HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS,
RESPONDENTS.

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 41)

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 40) ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRANSFER (DOCS. 35, 36)

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. § 2241. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.

On January 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that Petitioner's motions for injunctive relief be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner by mail on the same date and informed the parties that objections could be filed within thirty days of service, and any reply to objections could be filed within fourteen days of the filing of any objections.

On January 29, 2013, Petitioner filed a document entitled, "Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," in which he stated he had been transferred to Florence, Colorado, and not to another institution. (Doc. 41, 7.) In the motion, Petitioner requested that the Court vacate and set aside the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 19.) The Court thus CONSTRUES Petitioner's motion as objections to the findings and recommendations which are directed to the District Judge.

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 and has considered the objections. The undersigned has determined there is no need to modify the findings and recommendation to deny the motions based on the points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 8, 2013 are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2) Petitioner's motions for injunctive relief in the form of an order to show cause regarding transfer are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20130319

© 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.