-JFM (HC) Adams v. Wilkens et al, No. 2:2010cv03220 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/14/11: The court's order filed November 14, 2011 is vacated. Petitioner's November 2, 2011 motion for extension of time is granted. The court has considered petitioner's November 4, 2011 obje ctions to the findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011, are adopted in full. Respondent's April 11, 2011 motion to dismiss is granted. This action is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. This court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.(Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JFM (HC) Adams v. Wilkens et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JIMMIE LEE ADAMS, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent. 15 16 No. 2:10-cv-3220 JAM JFM (HC) 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 Rule 302. 19 On October 11, 2011, 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 fourteen days. On 22 November 2, 2011, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the 23 findings and recommendations, and on November 4, 2011, petitioner filed proposed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion for extension of time will be granted, 26 and the court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations without consideration of said 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections will be vacated. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and 2 Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including the objections 3 filed by petitioner on November 4, 2011. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court 4 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The court’s order filed November 14, 2011 is vacated; 7 2. Petitioner’s November 2, 2011 motion for extension of time is granted; 8 3. The court has considered petitioner’s November 4, 2011 objections to the 9 findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011; 10 4. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011, are adopted in full; 11 5. Respondent’s April 11, 2011 motion to dismiss is granted; 12 6. This action is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and 13 7. This court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 DATED: November 14, 2011 15 16 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
