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.

Eugenio Pereida v. James D. Hartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 14, 2010

EUGENIO PEREIDA,
PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, WARDEN, )) ORDER REMANDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO MAGISTRATE RESPONDENT. )

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger emm0d6 United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AN RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ) (Doc. 11)

JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 8, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, claiming lack of exhaustion. (Doc. 11). On November 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 15). This Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On November 24, 2010, Respondent filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 16). On November 30, 2010, Petitioner's counsel filed a response to

Respondent's objections. (Doc. 17).

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 Recommendations 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 Recommendations, filed November 4, 2010 (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), is DENIED; 3. This petition for writ of habeas corpus is REMANDED to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101214

© 1992-2010 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.