UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2010
CARL LOVELL GILLIAM, PETITIONER,
JAMES D. HARTLEY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [Doc. 12]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On December 2, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 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 December 21, 2009, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. (Court Doc. 13.)
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. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 2, 2009, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. Petitioner's claim that there was a violation of the state procedures and regulations is DISMISSED; and
4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.