(HC)Thomas v. Newsom

Opinion

PRENTICE RAY THOMAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00489-JLT-CDB (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING v. PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

Respondents. (Doc. 9)

On May 23, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that the claims raised are properly cognizable under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and that Petitioner had already filed a parallel § 1983 case. (Docs. 1, 7). The Court served the findings and recommendations on Petitioner and gave him 14-days to file objections thereto. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. The findings and recommendations advised Petitioner that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Doc. 9); Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2023 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED 2. Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). 3. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 7) 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 190 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _ July 11, 2023 Charis [Tourn D TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE