Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01237/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01237-2/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

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

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 through 304. 

On January 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s state law claims without 

leave to amend, and to refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge 

for further proceedings. The findings and recommendations were 

served on all parties on the same date. The findings and 

recommendations advised the parties that objections could be filed 

within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing 

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

 Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-BAM-HC

ORDER RE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE 

LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1) AND REFERRING THE CASE

BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

Case 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

of objections. On April 6, 2015, Petitioner filed objections. 

Although over fourteen days have passed since the filing of 

objections, no reply to the objections 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 report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 16, 2015, 

are ADOPTED in full; and 

2. Petitioner’s state claw claims are DISMISSED without leave 

to amend; and 

3. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for 

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 29, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2