-DAD (HC) Cole v. Hedgpeth, No. 2:2009cv02549 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/25/11 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations 36 are adopted in full; Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely 26 is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's second and fourth claims as time-barred is granted; and Respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's first and third claims as time-barred is denied. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (HC) Cole v. Hedgpeth Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEFFREY MARK COLE, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. KATHY ALLISON, Acting Warden, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-2549 LKK 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 Rule 302. 19 On February 18, 2011, 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 fourteen days. 22 Respondent 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 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 February 18, 2011, are adopted in 3 4 5 full; 2. Respondent’s June 24, 2010 motion to dismiss the petition as untimely (Doc. No. 26) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 6 7 a. Respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s second and fourth claims as time-barred is granted; and 8 9 10 b. Respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s first and third claims as time-barred is denied. DATED: March 25, 2011. 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.
