From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 29, 2015
Case No. ED CV 14-00524 PA (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. ED CV 14-00524 PA (RAO)

12-29-2015

WILLIAM LEE GRAY, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Petition, all of the records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED that the Third Amended Petition is denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. DATED: December 29, 2015

/s/_________

PERCY ANDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Gray v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 29, 2015
Case No. ED CV 14-00524 PA (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2015)
Case details for

Gray v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM LEE GRAY, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 29, 2015

Citations

Case No. ED CV 14-00524 PA (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2015)

Citing Cases

Tryon v. Palmer

For that reason plaintiff abandoned all claim to them. It is claimed by appellant that by reason of…

Cross v. Allen

The only remaining question is, whether, under the constitution and laws of Oregon in force at the time these…