(HC) Luu v. Singh et al, No. 2:2009cv02783 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/3/2010 ORDERING that the 6 findings and recommendations filed November 9, 2009, are ADOPTED in full. Petitioner's 1 October 6, 2009 application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations and This action is closed. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)

Download PDF
(HC) Luu v. Singh et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 QUOC XUONG LUU, 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-2783 LKK DAD P V. SINGH, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 ORDER / Petitioner, currently confined at Solano County Jail, has filed an application for a 17 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On November 9, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 9, 2009, are adopted in 3 full; 4 5 2. Petitioner’s October 6, 2009 application for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and 6 7 3. This action is closed. DATED: February 3, 2010. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.