(HC) McNeely v. Swarthout, No. 2:2010cv00728 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: AMENDED 22 ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS in full and ORDERING that petitioner's 14 Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) McNeely v. Swarthout Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DOCK McNEELY, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-10-0728 JAM KJM P vs. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent. AMENDED ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 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 August 6, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and has filed an additional 23 pleading he has titled “Affirmative Defense.” 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file including petitioner’s September 17, 2010 filing called “Affirmative Defense,” the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2010, are adopted in full; 5 and 2. Petitioner’s motion to amend or alter the judgment (Docket No. 14) is denied. 6 7 DATED: September 29, 2010. 8 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 mcne0728.805 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.
