Rodney Lee Rollness v. Felipe Martinez Jr.

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-07208-JGB-MAA Document 39 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:474 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RODNEY LEE ROLLNESS, Case No. 2:19-cv-07208-JGB (MAA) Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FELIPE MARTINEZ, JR., Warden, Respondent. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38 at 1) is denied. The record does not show that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Rather, Petitioner has demonstrated that “he had a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions.” LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984)). /// Case 2:19-cv-07208-JGB-MAA Document 39 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:475

1 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 2 Judge 1s accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered granting 3 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) and dismissing this action without 4 prejudice. 6 DATED: May 31, 2022 =: NF ( ° unr STATES DISTRICT JUDGE