(HC) Garmon Coats v. United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), No. 1:2008cv00666 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 15 , DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment in Favor of Respondent, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/18/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Garmon Coats v. United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GARMON COATS, 10 11 1:08-cv-00666 LJO DLB HC Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT v. 12 DAN SMITH, Warden 13 [Doc. 15] Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 17 On December 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that 18 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was 19 served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 20 days of the date of service of the order. 21 On February 12, 2009, 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 December 12, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and, 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: b9ed48 February 18, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
