From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Humphrey v. Clark

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jan 12, 2010
CV 09-4035-GAF (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010)

Summary

distinguishing Laws, and finding development of the record was not warranted on the petitioner's allegation that he was entitled to equitable tolling for mild mental retardation and functional illiteracy

Summary of this case from Harris v. Virga

Opinion


MICHAEL HUMPHREY, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent. No. CV 09-4035-GAF (DTB). United States District Court, C.D. California. January 12, 2010.

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

          GARY A. FEESS, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 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 adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

         IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.


Summaries of

Humphrey v. Clark

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jan 12, 2010
CV 09-4035-GAF (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010)

distinguishing Laws, and finding development of the record was not warranted on the petitioner's allegation that he was entitled to equitable tolling for mild mental retardation and functional illiteracy

Summary of this case from Harris v. Virga
Case details for

Humphrey v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HUMPHREY, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jan 12, 2010

Citations

CV 09-4035-GAF (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010)

Citing Cases

Harris v. Virga

Further development of the record therefore is not warranted. See Davis v. Farwell, 253 Fed.Appx. 631, 632…

Harris v. Virga

Further development of the record therefore is not warranted. See Davis v. Farwell, 253 Fed.Appx. 631, 632…