Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00462-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT HARRIS. )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00462-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 6)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On September 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief

be DENIED, and the matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge

for issuance of a further scheduling order. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. To date, the parties have not

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00462-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 18,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief, filed July

24, 2006, is DENIED; and,

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

issuance of a further scheduling order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00462-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2