(HC) Charity v. Brown et al, No. 2:2009cv01968 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 5/3/2010 ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations in full. Resp's 24 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Claim four of the petition is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Resp is ordered to file an answer to the remaining claims within 30 days. (Engbretson, K.)

Download PDF
(HC) Charity v. Brown et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TIMMY O’NEIL CHARITY, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-1968 FCD GGH P EDMUND BROWN, et al., Respondents. 14 ORDER / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 16 17 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 Rule 302. On March 23, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 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. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 23 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 23, 2010, are adopted in full; 2 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (no. 24) is denied; 3 3. Claim four of the petition is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing 4 Section 2254 Cases; respondent is ordered to file an answer to the remaining claims within thirty 5 days of the filed date of this order. 6 DATED: May 3, 2010. 7 8 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, 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.