IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 20, 2012
REGINALD WHITFIELD, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On January 5, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 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-one days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 5, 2012, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's September 21, 2010 motion to dismiss is granted;
3. The claims identified as claims two, three and four in petitioner's June 29, 2010 amended petition for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies; and
4. Respondent is directed to file his response with respect to claim one within twenty-one days of the filed date of this order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.