(HC) Williams v. Martel, No. 2:2018cv02224 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/18/2022 ADOPTING in FULL 24 Findings and Recommendations. DENYING The petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court DECLINES to issue the Certificate of Appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(HC) Williams v. Martel Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID EARL WILLIAMS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-02224 KJM DB v. ORDER MICHAEL MARTEL, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 21 served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 24.) Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 42.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2021, are adopted in full; 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 4 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 5 6 7 § 2253; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. DATED: August 18, 2022. 8 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.