(HC) Sharp v. Koenig, No. 1:2020cv00139 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations ; ORDER DENYING 14 Motion for TRO; No further orders will issue in this closed case, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ANDRE SHARP, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00139-DAD-JDP (HC) Petitioner, v. CRAIG KOENIG, Warden, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 6, 14, 16) 16 17 18 Petitioner Anthony Andre Sharp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. On February 14, 2020, petitioner’s case was administratively closed after the magistrate 22 judge determined that the instant petition should be treated as a motion to amend in a related case. 23 (Doc. No. 12 at 2.) 24 Now before the court are petitioner’s two motions for a temporary restraining order, 25 seeking a stay of his state-ordered restitution payments. (Doc. Nos. 6, 14.) On February 25, 26 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 27 both of petitioner’s motions be denied. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were 28 served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 1 1 fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to 2 do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 de novo review of case. The court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 5 supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. 8 9 adopted in full; 2. 10 11 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on February 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are Petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining order (Doc. Nos. 6, 14) are denied; and 3. No further orders will issue in this closed case. (See Doc. Nos. 12 and 13.) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.