(HC)Frelimo v. Lynch et al, No. 2:2021cv00194 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/9/2021 ADOPTING in FULL 13 Findings and Recommendations. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, and the Court DECLINES to issue the Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Frelimo v. Lynch et al Doc. 14 Case 2:21-cv-00194-JAM-AC Document 14 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OBA LEE FRELIMO, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-0194 JAM AC P v. ORDER JEFF LYNCH, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an 17 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein 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. See ECF No. 13. 23 Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 8, 2021 (ECF No. 13), are ADOPTED 27 28 in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00194-JAM-AC Document 14 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 2 1 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, and 2 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 3 2253. 4 5 6 7 Dated: August 9, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
