Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00543/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00543-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL GOMEZ LOPEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0543 JAM DAD P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 8, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:03-cv-00543-JAM-DAD Document 85 Filed 08/09/10 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2010 are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s March 31, 2010 motion to entertain second petition (Dkt. No. 79)

is denied;

3. Petitioner’s Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 80) is

dismissed without prejudice; and

4. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s June 8, 2010 findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

DATED: August 9, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00543-JAM-DAD Document 85 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2