From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sterling v. Unknown

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 18, 2006
No. 2:06-cv-1559-MCE-DAD-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:06-cv-1559-MCE-DAD-P.

August 18, 2006


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 21, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days. Petitioner has filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 21, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner's Request for Authorization to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this district is denied; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California if Petitioner obtains the permission of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


Summaries of

Sterling v. Unknown

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 18, 2006
No. 2:06-cv-1559-MCE-DAD-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2006)
Case details for

Sterling v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL HAMILTON STERLING, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 18, 2006

Citations

No. 2:06-cv-1559-MCE-DAD-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2006)