Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00268/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00268-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. Lackner
Respondent
Daniel Velasquez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 

recommended Ground One be dismissed from the petition with prejudice. The Findings and 

Recommendation was served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On April 14, 2014, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections, the 

DANIEL VELASQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

H. LACKNER, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00268 LJO GSA HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #8]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUND ONE FROM 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/22/14 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

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record 

and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the 

points raised in the objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 19, 2014, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Ground One is DISMISSED from the petition with prejudice;

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 2