Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01106/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01106-2/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

CIPRIANO ALVARADO CALDERON, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A. P. KANE, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-01106-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 11)

ORDER REMANDING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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 11, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition on the

grounds that the petition was not filed within the one-year limitation period imposed by 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 11). On February 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this

case filed Findings and Recommendations to deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 13). 

This Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within eleven days from the date of service of that order. On March

3, 2008, Respondent filed his objections. (Doc. 14). 

Case 1:05-cv-01106-LJO -JMD Document 16 Filed 03/12/08 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 Respondent'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 February 22, 2008 (Doc. 13), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), is DENIED; and,

3. This case is remanded back to the Magistrate Judge assigned to it for further

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01106-LJO -JMD Document 16 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2