Alberto Zuniga v. Warren Montgomery, No. 2:2017cv03510 - Document 31 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Christina A. Snyder for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 28 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Pettion for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 15 . (See Order for details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alberto Zuniga v. Warren Montgomery Doc. 31 1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ALBERTO ZUNIGA, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) WARREN MONTGOMERY, Warden,) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________ ) NO. CV 17-3510-CAS (KS) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss the 21 Petition (“Opposition”) filed on February 7, 2018, and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report filed 22 on February 26, 2018. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the 23 Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 24 been stated. 25 26 Having completed its review, the Court concludes that the arguments presented in the 27 Objections do not affect or alter the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. However, 28 in light of Petitioner’s Opposition, which was filed the day before the Report was issued but was Dockets.Justia.com 1 not entered onto the docket until after the Report was issued, in adopting the Report, the Court 2 makes the following amendments to the Report for the sake of clarity: 3 4 5 (1) page 3, line 1 of the Report, the following phrase is deleted: “has not received any further filings from Petitioner and”; 6 7 (2) page 6, line 18, the word “timely” is added after the phrase “Petitioner filed no . ..” 8 9 (3) page 6, line 19, the following phrase is deleted: “unopposed and”; 10 11 (4) page 11, line 9, the following sentence is added: “Petitioner filed an Opposition to 12 Respondent’s Motion on February 7, 2018 (Dkt. No. 28), which was entered on the 13 docket on February 14, 2018, but the Opposition provides no basis to find Petitioner’s 14 claims timely and the belated filing nonetheless was not in compliance with the 15 Court’s order.” 16 17 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set 18 forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) 19 Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 20 21 22 DATED: March 16, 2018 23 __ 24 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28
]]>
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.
