(HC) Gonzalez v. Sexton, No. 1:2018cv00039 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 8 , 19 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/2/2019: The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to identify Michael Sexton, rather than "On Habeas Corpus," as the respondent in this action; and The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MIGUEL GONZALEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 1:18-cv-00039-DAD-JDP (HC) v. MICHAEL SEXTON, 15 Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. Nos. 8, 19) 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 13, 2018, respondent moved to dismiss 19 the pending petition arguing that it was untimely filed. On January 4, 2019, the assigned 20 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion 21 to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 19.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the 22 parties and provided notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of 23 service. (Id.) On January 22, 2019, the magistrate judge granted respondent an extension of time to file 24 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 21.) To date, respondent has not 26 objected to the findings and recommendations, and the time period for doing so has expired. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 4, 2019 (Doc. No. 19) are 6 adopted in full; 7 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is denied; 8 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to identify Michael Sexton, rather than “On Habeas Corpus,” as the respondent in this action; and 9 10 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 11 12 13 14 proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
