(HC) Jose Olmedo v. J.D. Hartley, Warden, No. 1:2010cv00406 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 12 Motion to Dismiss; DIRECTING Respondent to file an ANSWER to the Petition within Forty-Five Days from the date of service, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/02/2010. (ANSWER Deadline: 10/22/2010)(Martin, S)

Download PDF
(HC) Jose Olmedo v. J.D. Hartley, Warden Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE OLMEDO, 10 11 1:10-cv-00406-AWI-DLB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION, AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE v. 12 J.D. HARTLEY, 13 Respondent. 14 / [Doc. 14] 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 On June 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the 18 Motion to Dismiss be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties 19 and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of 20 service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 22 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 23 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 22, 2010, is ADOPTED IN 26 FULL; 27 2. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; and 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3. 2 Respondent is directed to file an answer to the petition within forty-five days from the date of service of this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: 0m8i78 September 2, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.