Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01938-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Dwayne Girley
Petitioner
Gary Swarthout
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOUGLAS DWAYNE GIRLEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GARY SWARTHOUT, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:12-cv-1938 KJM KJN P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 11, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 file, the court 

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

///// 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-01938-KJM-KJN Document 39 Filed 02/28/14 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2013 (ECF No. 33), are adopted 

in full; 

 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay and to amend (ECF No. 31) is denied; 

 3. Petitioner is granted thirty days in which to file a reply to respondent’s answer; and 

 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253. Petitioner may not appeal the denial of a motion to stay and to amend because it is an 

interlocutory order, not a final judgment. 

DATED: February 28, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01938-KJM-KJN Document 39 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 2