(HC) Haff v. People of The State of California et al, No. 2:2008cv00294 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/7/09 ORDERING that the 21 findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2009, are adopted in full. Respondent's 5 motion to dismiss, filed on April 3, 2008, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Haff v. People of The State of California et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MATTHEW DAVID HAFF, 11 12 13 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0294 MCE GGH P vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 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 July 10, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed 22 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 July 10, 2009, are adopted in full; 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed on April 3, 2008, is granted; and 4 3. This case is dismissed. 5 Dated: August 7, 2009 6 7 8 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 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.
