IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 17, 2012
ERIC MITCHELL, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
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 Rule 302.
On August 23, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 fourteen days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 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 August 23, 2012, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's December 5, 2011 motion to dismiss the habeas petition for lack of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction (Doc. No. 14) is denied;
3. Respondent is directed to file an answer to petitioner's habeas petition within sixty days from the date of the court's order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases; and
4. Petitioner shall file and serve a reply, if any, within thirty days after service of the answer.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.