(HC) Johnson v. Evans, No. 2:2005cv01223 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/07/09; 35 Motion to amend petition is DENIED; the petition filed on 06/20/05 is submitted for decision. (Manzer, C)

Download PDF
(HC) Johnson v. Evans Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WALTER JOHNSON, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. M. L. EVANS, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-05-1223 JAM DAD P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On September 18, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. Petitioner 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 18, 2009, are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Petitioner’s September 5, 2008 “Motion For: Reinstatement of Writ of Habeas 5 Corpus” (Doc. No. 35), construed as a motion for leave to file an amended petition, is denied; 6 and 7 8 9 10 3. The habeas petition filed June 20, 2005, is submitted for decision. DATED: December 7, 2009 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.