Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01798-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Santiago Ramirez
Petitioner
Spearman
Respondent

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. 

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 

On December 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings 

and recommendations to dismiss without leave to amend 

Petitioner’s state law claim that his sentence violates the 

constitution of the state of California, and to refer the matter 

back to the Magistrate Judge to order a response to the 

remaining claim and issue a scheduling order. The findings and 

recommendations were served on all parties on the same date. 

ROBERTO SANTIAGO RAMIREZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01798-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE 

LAW CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 

(DOC. 1) AND REFERRING THE MATTER

BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

Case 1:14-cv-01798-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

The findings and recommendations advised the parties that 

objections could be filed within thirty days and replies within 

fourteen days after the filing of objections. On February 17, 

2015, Petitioner filed timely objections. Although over 

fourteen days have passed since the filing of objections, no 

reply to the objections has been filed.

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. The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file 

and has considered the objections; the undersigned has 

determined there is no need to modify the findings and 

recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

The Court finds that the report and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 31, 

2014, are ADOPTED in full; and 

2. Petitioner’s state law claims are DISMISSED without 

leave to amend; and 

3. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for 

further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01798-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Case 1:14-cv-01798-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 3