(HC) Brown v. Hartley, No. 1:2010cv00652 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 11 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Further Response to the Petition in Accordance with the Court's June 21, 2010, Order to Respond, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/15/2010. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
(HC) Brown v. Hartley Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CEDRICK BROWN, 10 11 1:10-cv-00652-LJO-DLB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INSTANT PETITION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE PETITION, AND REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS v. 12 J. HARTLEY, 13 Respondent. 14 15 / [Doc. 14] 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 1, 2010 , the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the 20 Motion to Dismiss be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties 21 and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of 22 service of the order. 23 24 25 On November 2, 2010, Respondent filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 26 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's 27 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is 28 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. 4 The Findings and Recommendation issued October 1, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; 6 3. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall 7 file a further response to the petition in accordance with the Court’s June 21, 8 2010, order to respond; and 9 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 November 15, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2