UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 29, 2012
ISAIAH CORTEZ POSEY, PETITIONER,
K. HARRINGTON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. WU U.S. District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On June 22, 2012, Respondent filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner did not file a response to the Objections.
Respondent argues that his motion did not violate the Magistrate Judge's scheduling order, one of the reasons the Magistrate Judge gave for recommending that the motion be denied. In fact, for the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, it did. But in any event, the Magistrate Judge's other stated reasons for recommending denial, which Respondent does not dispute, suffice to support the recommendation. Accordingly, having made a de novo determination of the parts of the Report and Recommendation to which Respondent objects, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED. Respondent is ORDERED to file an Answer to the First Amended Petition within 30 days of service of this Order. Respondent may renew in the Answer his arguments concerning why ground two of the FAP should be dismissed but not ground one.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.