(HC) Brown v. Yates, No. 2:2005cv01195 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/30/10 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations 32 are adopted in full; Petitioner's 1/8/10, "request for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) hrg and motion for appointment of counsel&q uot; 24 is denied; and For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's 6/25/10 findings and recommendations, the court finds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Brown v. Yates Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD DON BROWN, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. WARDEN YATES, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-05-1195 LKK DAD P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 25, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s January 8, 2010, “request for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) hearing 4 and motion for appointment of counsel” (Docket No. 24) is denied; and 5 3. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s June 25, 2010 findings and 6 recommendations, the court finds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 7 of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this 8 action. 9 DATED: August 30, 2010. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
