Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00689-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Lopez
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LOPEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0689-OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 12, 28]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 72-302. 

On January 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

herein. These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

thirty days. Petitioner filed objections on January 27, 2008. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00689-OWW -WMW Document 31 Filed 03/10/08 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

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) That Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2) This petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice as an

unauthorized second or successive petition; 

3) Petitioner’s motion to grant the petition is DENIED as moot [Doc. 22];

4) Petitioner’s motion to strike Respondent’s reply is DENIED as meritless [Doc. 26];

5) Petitioner’s motion to expand the record is DENIED as irrelevant [Doc. 27];

6) That the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00689-OWW -WMW Document 31 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 2