Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02290-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lackner
Respondent
Alejandro Madrid
Petitioner

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALEJANDRO MADRID, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LACKNER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2290-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an 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 September 8, 2015, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner filed late 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On November 4, 2015, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations, but 

mistakenly stated that neither party had filed objections. Therefore, the Court will vacate the 

November 4, 2015 order adopting the findings and recommendations and reconsider them in light 

of petitioner’s objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases. 

Case 2:14-cv-02290-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/30/16 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

 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, including petitioner’s objections to the 

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the order entered on November 4, 2015 

(ECF No. 23) adopting in full the findings and recommendations and declining to issue a 

certificate of appealability, is CONFIRMED. 

DATED: March 29, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

Case 2:14-cv-02290-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 2