(HC) Schuster v. Clark, No. 1:2010cv01983 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/2011 adopting 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss the Petition; dismissing 1 , 10 Petition without leave to amend; declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability and directing Clerk to close case. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Schuster v. Clark Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 THOMAS C. SCHUSTER, 9 Petitioner, 10 v. 11 KEN CLARK, Warden, 12 Respondent. 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv—01983-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14) ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION (DOCS. 10, 1) ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1) ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 21 304. 22 The matter was referred to the Magistrate On May 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 23 recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss without 24 leave to amend Petitioner’s first and second due process claims 25 concerning some evidence, to dismiss Petitioner’s remaining 26 claims without leave to amend, to decline to issue a certificate 27 of appealability, and to direct the Clerk to close the case. 28 The findings and recommendations were served on all parties 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 on the same date. 2 Petitioner that objections were due within thirty days of 3 service. 4 The findings and recommendations informed On June 17, 2011, Petitioner filed timely objections to the 5 findings and recommendations. 6 reply has passed, no reply has been filed. 7 Although the period for filing a In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 8 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 9 The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has 10 considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there 11 is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on 12 the points raised in the objections. 13 report and recommendation is supported by the record and proper 14 analysis. 15 Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that: 16 1) The Court finds that the 17 The findings and recommendations filed on May 31, 2011, are ADOPTED in full; 18 2) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 19 3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED 20 21 22 23 24 without leave to amend; 4) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: 0m8i78 July 22, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
