Joseph Carrington v. Robert Neuschmid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH CARRINGTON, Case No. 2:19-cv-02771-FMO-MAA

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden, JUDGE 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 of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“R&R,” ECF No. 25). 21 The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 22 Recommendation, which were filed on February 4, 2020. (“Objection,” ECF No. 23 26.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has 24 engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Petitioner 25 specifically has objected. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. ALLEGED PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES 2 In the Objection, Petitioner asserts that the Court’s handling of Petitioner’s 3 stay request was “unconstitutional and prejudicial.” (Objection at 2 (emphasis 4 removed).) This Court…