UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 1, 2011
DERRAL G. ADAMS (WARDEN), RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dolly M. Gee United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has reviewed the entire record in this action, as well as the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and all objections thereto. The court has made a de novo determination with respect to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made.
The Report and Recommendation is corrected to replace Footnote 16 as follows:
To the extent that Petitioner's claim of actual innocence could be liberally construed as a claim for an exception to the untimeliness bar, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such an exception is warranted in this case under § 2244(d)(1). See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15, 115 S. Ct. 851, 130 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1995); Johnson v. Knowles, 541 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2008); Majoy v. Roe, 296 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2002).
IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) that Respondent's motion to dismiss (docket no. 22, filed September 27, 2010) be granted; and (3) that judgment be entered dismissing the Petition, with prejudice, as time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the judgment herein be served on the parties.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.