(HC) Williams v. Martel, No. 2:2008cv02315 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/29/10 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 12/16/09 31 are ADOPTED in full. Respondent's MOTION TO DISMISS 27 is DENIED. Respondent is ordered to file his answer within forty-five days of any order denying the Motion to Dismiss. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(HC) Williams v. Martel Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ABE WILLIAMS, JR., 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2315 GEB KJM P Respondent. ORDER vs. M. MARTEL, 15 16 / 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 December 16, 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 twenty days. Respondent 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 25 entire 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 December 16, 2009, are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (#27) is denied; and 5 3. Respondent is ordered to file his answer within forty-five days of any order 6 denying the motion to dismiss. 7 Dated: January 29, 2010 8 9 10 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 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.