(HC) Murphy v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2019cv02546 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/24/2020 ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Ground 4 for failure to state a cognizable federal claim, and REFERRING this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
(HC) Murphy v. People of the State of California Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA MURPHY, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-02546 KJM GGH P v. ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Petitioner 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 7. 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 carefully reviewed the file, the court 26 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 14, 2020, are adopted in full; 3 2. Ground Four is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim; and 4 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 5 proceedings. 6 DATED: February 24, 2020. 7 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.