(HC) Pritchett v. King, No. 1:2012cv01333 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Petitioner's Second, Third, and Fourth Claims without Leave to Amend; ORDER REFERRING the Proceeding back to the Magistrate Judge to Direct the Filing of a Response to the Remaining Claim signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/4/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(HC) Pritchett v. King Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JESSIE DEE PRITCHETT, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. AUDREY KING, Executive Director, 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12-cv—01333-LJO-SKO-HC 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 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 22 304. The matter was referred to the Magistrate 23 On October 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s second, third, and fourth 25 claims without leave to amend because they were state law claims 26 and to refer the proceeding back to the Magistrate Judge to 27 direct the filing of a response to the remaining claim in the 28 petition. The findings and recommendations were served by mail 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 on Petitioner on the same date. 2 informed Petitioner that objections were due within thirty days 3 of service. 4 5 The findings and recommendations Although the deadline for filing objections has passed, no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 7 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 8 The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file. 9 Court finds that the report and recommendations are supported by 10 The the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 12 1) The findings and recommendations filed on October 17, 13 2012, are ADOPTED in full; and 14 15 2) The first, second, and third claims in the petition are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 16 3) The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge to 17 direct the filing of a response to the remaining claim in the 18 petition. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: b9ed48 December 4, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.