(HC)Thomas v. Hartley, No. 1:2009cv02252 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Granting 18 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to File Petitioner's First Amended Petition signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 02/02/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(HC)Thomas v. Hartley Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DENNIS THOMAS, 1:09-cv-02252-OWW-MJS (HC) Petitioner, 10 v. 11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 JAMES HARTLEY, Warden, 13 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO FILE PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION 14 / (Doc. 21) 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 16 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 On December 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and 19 Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. This Findings and 20 Recommendation was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed 21 within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Instead of filing objections, on 22 December 30, 2010, Petitioner lodged a first amended petition with the Court. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has 24 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 25 Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported 26 by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 7, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 4 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court shall hereby file Petitioner's first amended petition for 6 writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 22.) 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 2, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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.