Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00935-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW MANCILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L. MUNIZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00935-AWI-GSA-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3, DENYING 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AS MOOT, AND DISCHARGING THE 

COURT’S APRIL 6, 2015 ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 29)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) 

that recommended that Petitioner’s motion to withdraw claims 1, 2, and 3 from the petition be 

granted and Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot. ECF No. 29. The F&R also 

recommended discharging the Court’s April 6, 2015 order to show cause. On May 18, 2015, the 

F&R was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 

thirty (30) days after the date of service of the Findings and Recommendations. The parties did 

not file objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 30 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the Magistrate Judge's F&R is supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need 

to modify it.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 18, 2015 is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw claims 1, 2, and 3 is GRANTED;

3. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are DELETED from the petition;

4. The Court’s April 6, 2015 order to show cause is DISCHARGED; 

5. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as MOOT; and 

6. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 30 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2