IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2010
WILLIE B. PENILTON, PETITIONER,
JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
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 February 27, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were to be 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. On March 26, 2009, petitioner was granted a 30 day extension of time to file his objections. Neither party filed objections and the findings and recommendations were adopted on September 2, 2009.
On September 28, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that he should be granted an additional opportunity to file objections because the clerks office did not serve him with a copy of the March 26, 2009 order granting his 30 day extension of time.
Petitioner's motion was granted on November 25, 2009, and he was given an additional 30 days to file objections. On January 14, 2010, petitioner filed a request for an additional extension of time. That request was granted on January 22, 2010. Petitioner has now filed objections.
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 on February 27, 2009, are adopted in full; and
2. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.