From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 24, 2015
Case No. CV 14-00069-SVW (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. CV 14-00069-SVW (DTB)

11-24-2015

DANIEL ANTONIO BROWN, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed herein. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied and that Judgment be entered denying the First Amended Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. DATED: November 24, 2015

/s/_________

STEPHEN V. WILSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 24, 2015
Case No. CV 14-00069-SVW (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Brown v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL ANTONIO BROWN, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 24, 2015

Citations

Case No. CV 14-00069-SVW (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2015)