Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HICKMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY HEDGEPETH, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00547-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 15)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

(Docs. 8, 11)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and

303.

On June 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations recommending the denial of Petitioner’s motions

for injunctive relief. The findings and recommendations

permitted the filing of objections within thirty days and a reply

within fourteen days thereafter. The findings and

recommendations were served on all parties on the same date. 

On July 31, 2012, Petitioner filed objections to the

findings and recommendations, which the Court will consider to

have been timely filed.

1

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 08/20/12 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

Although the time for the filing of a reply has passed, no

reply has been filed. 

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. 

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there

is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on

the points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for

injunctive relief are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 2