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 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY LEE ROLLNESS, Case No. 2:19-cv-07208-JGB (MAA) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 FELIPE MARTINEZ, JR., Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 19 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the 20 United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review 21 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38 at 1) is denied. 23 The record does not show that the interests of justice require the appointment of 24 counsel. Rather, Petitioner has demonstrated that “he had a good understanding of 25 the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions.” 26 LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bashor v. Risley, 730 27 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984)). 28 /// 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28