IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 27, 2009
PETER DALE GRAVES, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL MARTEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On December 2, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner and respondent have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis, except as to page 2:16, which erroneously states that petitioner filed his petition for habeas corpus on April 21, 2007. The actual date was April 21, 2006. This error does not affect the accuracy of the remaining findings of fact and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a. The findings and recommendations filed December 2, 2008, are adopted to the extent stated above;
b. Respondent's April 9, 2008 motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations (Docket No. 14) is denied; and
3. Respondent is directed to file an answer accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition within sixty days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.