(HC) Barajas v. Virga, No. 1:2013cv02000 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 24 Motion for Stay and Abeyance signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/11/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE BARAJAS, Petitioner, 10 11 12 13 No. 1:13-cv-02000-AWI-SKO HC v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE TIM VIRGA, (Docs. 24, 29) Respondent. 14 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 18 On August 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which 19 20 she recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's motion for an order of stay and abeyance to 21 permit exhaustion of unexhausted claims. The findings and recommendations, which were served 22 on all parties the same day, provided that objections could be served within thirty days and replies 23 within fourteen days after the filing of any objections. Neither party filed objections. 24 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and 26 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 28 1 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2015 (Doc. No. 29) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order of stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED; and 3. 3 1. The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 11, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.