(HC) Cox v. Yates, No. 2:2008cv02107 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/28/10 ORDERING that the 17 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED as to all sections but for C.1 and the grant of petitioner's application to vacate his sentences on counts 8, 14, and 15. The magistrate judge shall allow petitioner an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised in respondent's objections. The magistrate judge shall issue new F&Rs as to section C.1 in light of the new arguments raised by respondent. (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Cox v. Yates Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH KNIGHT COX, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-08-2107 LKK KJM P vs. JAMES A. YATES, Respondent. 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 May 12, 2010, 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-one days. Respondent has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. In the objections, respondent has raised 23 arguments that were not discussed in its answer. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file, the court finds that the arguments raised in respondent’s objections may alter the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 outcome of this case as to Section C.1 and the grant of petitioner’s application to vacate his 2 sentences on counts 8, 14, and 15. Aside from this section, however, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 12, 2010, are adopted as to all 6 sections but for C.1 and the grant of petitioner’s application to vacate his sentences on counts 8, 7 14, and 15; 8 9 10 2. The magistrate judge shall allow petitioner an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised in respondent’s objections; and 3. The magistrate judge shall issue new findings and recommendations as to 11 Section C.1 in light of the new arguments raised by respondent. 12 DATED: July 28, 2010. 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.
