(HC) Johnson v. Salazar, No. 2:2017cv01310 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/19/2018 ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations in FULL; The 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and the court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED. (Fabillaran, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Johnson v. Salazar Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE D. JOHNSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1310 JAM KJN P v. ORDER J. SALAZAR, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of 17 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 15, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 1 27 28 Petitioner filed separate objections on December 26, 2017, December 28, 2017, December 29, 2017, and January 2, 2018. (ECF Nos. 17-20.) Ordinarily, parties file objections in one document. However, all of the objections were handed to prison officials for mailing prior to the December 29, 2017 deadline to file objections. Therefore, the court considers all four objections. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 15, 2017, are adopted in full; 5 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is granted; 6 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 7 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2253. 9 DATED: March 19, 2018 10 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
