(HC) Vardanyan v. Gonzales et al, No. 1:2007cv01246 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 18 ; ORDER Dismissing Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/9/2009. CASE CLOSED.(Esteves, C)

Download PDF
(HC) Vardanyan v. Gonzales et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ROBERT VARDANYAN, 9 Petitioner, 10 v. 11 ANTONIO GONZALES, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-01246 OWW-TAG (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 18) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 14 15 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 17 On October 31, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Findings and 18 Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 18). 19 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 20 objections were to be filed within fifteen days from the date of service of that order. Petitioner 21 requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file his objections until December 29, 2008. 22 (Doc. 20). To date, however, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 23 Recommendations have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 26 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 31, 2008 (Doc. 18), are ADOPTED IN 3 FULL; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close the 6 file. 7 This order terminates the action in its entirety. The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c)(1) 8 does not require a certificate of appealability because this is an appeal from an order denying a 9 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas 10 proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. Forde 11 v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 12 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 9, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.