UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 18, 2008
GEORGE WILSON, III, PETITIONER,
JEFF WRIGLEY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 21]
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On June 27, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the instant petition as time barred be DENIED, Petitioner's due process challenge to the 2005 administrative decision be DENIED on the merits, and Respondent be directed to file a supplemental response addressing Petitioner's challenge to the 1995 decision. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.
On July 10, 2008, Respondent filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Respondent's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis, as the cases cited by Respondent involved prisoners incarcerated pursuant to a statecourt judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 27, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED;
3. Petitioner's due process challenge to the 2005 administrative decision be DENIED on the merits; and,
4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent is directed to file a supplemental response addressing Petitioner's challenge to the 1995 decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.