Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05510/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05510-2/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

MICHAEL RAYMOND DIXON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

TOM CAREY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05510-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 22)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 12)

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. Petitioner filed his amended petition on December 20, 2004. (Doc.

12). 

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended petition on August 11, 2005, contending

that the Petition was not filed within the one-year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). (Doc. 16). On March 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Report

and Recommendation recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. (Doc.

22). The Report and Recommendation were served on all parties and contained notice that any

Case 1:04-cv-05510-OWW -TAG Document 24 Filed 03/31/06 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

objections were to be filed within five days from the date of service of that order. To date, none of

the parties has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 

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 Report and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued March 20, 2006 (Doc. 22), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16), is GRANTED;

3. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 12), is DISMISSED; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close

the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05510-OWW -TAG Document 24 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2