(HC) Wishart v. Adler et al, No. 1:2009cv01118 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 10 Motion to Dismiss Magistrate's Non-Response to Petitioner's July 13, 2009 Request for Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/29/2010. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Wishart v. Adler et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD E. WISHART, 10 Petitioner, 11 12 13 v. 14 15 NEIL H. ADLER, 16 Respondent. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-01118 LJO YNP [DLB] (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #8] ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. #3] ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS MAGISTRATE’S NON-RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S JULY 13, 2009 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. #10) 18 19 20 21 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation on February 17, 2010, that 22 recommended that Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and 23 Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 24 within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner did not file any objections to the 25 Findings and Recommendation but he did file a motion for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s 26 actual innocence claim on March 16, 2010, (Doc. #9), and a motion to “Dismiss Magistrate’s Non- 27 Response to Petitioner’s July 13, 2009 ‘Request for Temporary Restraining Order’” on March 17, 28 2010. (Doc. #10.) U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 1 Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 1 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the 3 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is 4 supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no justification to modify the Findings and 5 Recommendation based on either of the motions that Petitioner subsequently filed. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 17, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. The Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED; and 9 3. Petitioner’s motion to “Dismiss Magistrate’s Non-Response...” is DENIED. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 March 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
