Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01462-3/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

FREE ODELL SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1462 GEB EFB P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 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 August 22, 2008, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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.

Case 2:07-cv-01462-GEB-KJN Document 21 Filed 09/25/08 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s November 26, 2007, motion to dismiss is granted in part and

denied in part as set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations;

3. Petitioner’s December 26, 2007, motion to stay this action is denied;

4. Petitioner’s December 26, 2007, motion to file an amended petition containing

only exhausted claims is granted; 

5. Petitioner is given 30 days to file an amended petition deleting his unexhausted

claims; and,

6. Failure to file an amended petition will result in the dismissal of this action

without prejudice. See Rose v. Lundy, 544 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).

Dated: September 25, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01462-GEB-KJN Document 21 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 2