Opinion
1:11-cv-01172-AWI-BAM-HC
08-08-2012
STEWART MANAGO, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent.
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECMMENDATIONS (DOC. 21)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING PRISON
STAFF TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO
COMMUNICATE WITH INMATE WITNESSES
(Doc. 17)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND A
PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 18)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 303.
On June 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations recommending the denial of 1) Petitioner's motion for an order directing the prison litigation coordinator to allow Petitioner to contact his inmate witnesses; and 2) Petitioner's motion for judicial intervention and a protective order. The findings and recommendations permitted the filing of objections within thirty days and a reply within fourteen days thereafter. The findings and recommendations were served on all parties on the same date.
On July 9, 2012, Petitioner filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.
Although the time for the filing of a reply has passed, no reply 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 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The June 11, 2012, Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 21) is ADOPTED in full;
2. Petitioner's motion for an order directing the prison litigation coordinator to allow Petitioner to contact his inmate witnesses (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; and
3. Petitioner's motion for judicial intervention and a protective order (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE