(HC) Pombrio v. Clark, No. 1:2010cv00191 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 20 Motion for Release and Request for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 10/18/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(HC) Pombrio v. Clark Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SCOTT E. POMBRIO, 10 11 1:10-cv-00191-OWW-DLB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR RELEASE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 12 KEN CLARK, [Doc. 21] 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 On August 17, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that 18 Petitioner’s motion for release and request for preliminary injunction be DENIED. This 19 Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections 20 were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 21 On September 7, 2010, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and 22 Recommendation. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 24 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's 25 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is 26 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 27 questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 The Findings and Recommendation issued August 17, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and 4 2. Petitioner’s motion for release and request for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 18, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.