Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01079/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01079-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER MAURICE SAVAGE, No. 2:04-cv-1079-MCE-PAN-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

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 General

Order No. 262.

On January 24, 2006, 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 ten (10)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 28 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 On February 10, 2006, the magistrate judge extended for ten days the time for filing 1

objections. On March 1, 2006, petitioner filed a request, dated February 23, 2006, for an

additional extension of time to file objections. On March 3, 2006, petitioner filed objections,

dated February 28, 2006, to the findings and recommendations. Petitioner’s second request for

extension of time is granted and the court has considered petitioner’s objections.

2

After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner has filed

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 January 24, 2006,

are adopted in full; 

2. Respondents’ June 17, 2005 Motion to Dismiss is granted;

and

3. This action is dismissed as untimely and as pleading

claims that are unexhausted. 

DATED: March 8, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 28 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2