Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00684-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Roderick K. Thompson
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK K. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00684 LJO DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

[Doc. 13]

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

UNNECESSARY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On April 18, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. 

On May 14, 2008, Petitioners filed timely 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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Case 1:07-cv-00684-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 05/30/08 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 Recommendation issued April 18, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent;

and,

4. A Certificate of Appealability is not required. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d

1229 (9 Cir. 2005); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9 Cir. 2004). th th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00684-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 2