UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2012
KEVIN LAQUAN TRICE, PETITIONER,
M. MCDONALD, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 37)
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION (DOCS. 18, 20) AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION IN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS
ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR A STAY (DOCS. 21, 24)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
On March 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations to deny Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, to dismiss Petitioner's motion for a stay of the proceedings as moot, to direct Respondent to file a response to the petition within forty-five (45) days, and to direct the parties to proceed in accordance with the Court's previous order of June 14, 2011, concerning the filing of a response and traverse.
The findings and recommendations were served on all parties. Although the findings and recommendations advised that objections could be filed within thirty (30) days of service, the period for filing objections has passed without the filing of any objections.
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, the Court finds that the report and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on March 23, 2012, are ADOPTED in full; and
2. The Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is DENIED; and
3. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a response to the petition within forty-five days of service of this order; and
4) The parties are DIRECTED to proceed in accordance with the Court's previous order of June 14, 2011, concerning the filing of a response and traverse.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.