Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armstrong v. Runnels

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 9, 2009

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, PETITIONER,
v.
D.L. RUNNELS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended 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 February 3, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. Petitioner has 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 3, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. The amended petition, filed on July 18, 2008 (Doc. No. 20) is dismissed, and this action is dismissed for failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement;

3. Petitioner's motion in limine, filed on July 14, 2008 (Doc. No. 19), is denied; and

4. Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance, filed on July 23, 2008 (Doc. No. 22), is denied.

20090309

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.