(HC) Valencia v. Gipson, No. 1:2012cv01783 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING Grounds Two and Five from the Petition; and ORDER REFERRING Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/28/2012. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(HC) Valencia v. Gipson Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 LUIS ALBERTO VALENCIA, 1:12-CV-01783 LJO GSA HC 13 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #8] 14 15 v. ORDER DISMISSING GROUNDS FROM PETITION 16 17 ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, 18 Respondent. 19 / 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 22 On November 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 23 recommended Grounds Two and Five be DISMISSED from the petition for failure to state a claim 24 for relief. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that 25 any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty 26 (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 2 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis, 3 and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 21, 2012, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Grounds Two and Five are DISMISSED from the petition; 7 3. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings; and 8 4. As this is not a “final order” which disposes of all claims in the petition, a certificate of 9 appealability is not required. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 28, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 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.