Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01195-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Don Brown
Petitioner
Yates
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DON BROWN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1195 LKK DAD P

vs.

WARDEN YATES,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 25, 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 2:05-cv-01195-DAD-CSK Document 36 Filed 08/31/10 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 25, 2010, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s January 8, 2010, “request for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) hearing

and motion for appointment of counsel” (Docket No. 24) is denied; and

3. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s June 25, 2010 findings and

recommendations, the court finds that 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 30, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-01195-DAD-CSK Document 36 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 2