Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01570/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01570-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE A. TOSCANO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01570 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #25]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS [Doc. #18]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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 2, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED with

prejudice for violating the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Magistrate

Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings

and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

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

On June 4, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 06/14/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 2, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the petition is GRANETD; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2