(HC) Jack D. Riley v. James Hartley, No. 1:2009cv01012 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 20 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER REFERRING the Action to the Magistrate Judge to Direct the Filing of a Response to the Petition, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/25/2010. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
(HC) Jack D. Riley v. James Hartley Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JACK D. RILEY, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 JAMES HARTLEY, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv—01012-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docs. 23, 20) ORDER REFERRING THE ACTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DIRECT THE FILING OF A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 22 304. 23 The matter was referred to the Magistrate On June 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations recommending that the Respondent’s motion to 25 dismiss the petition be denied and that the petition for writ of 26 habeas corpus be referred to the Magistrate Judge for directions 27 concerning the issuance of a further response to the petition. 28 These findings and recommendations were served on all parties. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The period for filing objections has passed, but no objections 2 have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 4 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that 6 the report and recommendation is supported by the record and 7 proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on June 21, 2010, 10 11 12 13 14 are ADOPTED in full; and 2. The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is DENIED; and 3. The matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to issue directions to Respondent to file an answer to the petition. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0m8i78 August 25, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2