-SKO (HC)Danley v. The Attorney General of the State of California, No. 1:2011cv00123 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2011 adopting 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; dismissing Petition and declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
-SKO (HC)Danley v. The Attorney General of the State of California Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 EDWARD G. DANLEY, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 15 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv—00123–LJO-SKO-HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 7, 1) ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. 1) ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE 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 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local 22 Rules 302 and 304. 23 The matter has been referred to the On February 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the 25 petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26 and recommendations were served on all parties on the same date. 27 The findings and recommendations informed Petitioner that 28 objections were due within thirty days of service. The findings 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 On March 10, 2011, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations, which the Court deems to be timely. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 4 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has 6 considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there 7 is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on 8 the points raised in the objections. 9 report and recommendation is supported by the record and proper 10 The Court finds that the analysis. 11 Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that: 12 1) 13 The findings and recommendations filed on February 4, 2011, are ADOPTED in full; and 14 2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for 15 failure to state a claim cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 17 18 3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 19 4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the action. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: b9ed48 March 14, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.