Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05241/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05241-6/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY LEE VAUGHN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:01-cv-05241-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED AND

CORRECTED FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 61)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 22, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Amended and

Corrected Findings and Recommendations that the single claim raised

in the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is not

procedurally defaulted, and the State be directed to file an answer

to the instant petition within thirty days. These Amended and

Corrected Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within

fifteen (15) days, and any replies thereto were to be filed within

five (5) court days therefrom. On May 24, 2006, Respondent filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On May 30, 2006,

Petitioner filed a reply thereto.

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 64 Filed 06/26/06 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

27

28

2

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations is supported by the record and proper

analysis. Respondent's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 22, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The single claim raised in the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus is not procedurally defaulted; and,

3. The State shall file an answer to the instant petition

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 64 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2