-SMS (HC) Richard Allen Smith v. Ken Clark, No. 1:2010cv01111 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Re: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14 ), ORDER Granting Respondent's Motion To Dismiss The Petition Without Leave To Amend (Docs. 13 , 1 ), ORDER Dismissing The Petition Without Leave To Amend (Doc. 1 ), Declining To Issue A Certificate Of Appealability, And Directing The Clerk To Close The Case, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/8/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
-SMS (HC) Richard Allen Smith v. Ken Clark Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 KATHLEEN ALLISON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv—01111–OWW-SMS-HC ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14) ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (DOCS. 13, 1) ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1), DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE 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. The matter has been referred to the 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local 22 Rules 302 and 304. 23 On May 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations to dismiss the petition without leave to amend 25 for failure to state a cognizable claim, decline to issue a 26 certificate of appealability, and direct the clerk to close the 27 action. The findings and recommendations were served by mail on 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner on the same date. 2 informed Petitioner that objections were due within thirty days 3 of service. 4 5 6 The findings and recommendations Although the deadline for filing objections has passed, no objections have been filed. 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) 13 14 15 16 The findings and recommendations filed on May 27, 2011, are ADOPTED in full; and 2) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition without leave to amend is GRANTED; and 3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED 17 without leave to amend for failure to state a claim cognizable in 18 a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 19 4) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of 20 appealability; and 21 5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Emm0d6Dated: 23 July 8, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.