Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00142-4/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

VICTOR BENITEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SCOTT P. RAWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00142-OWW-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 5)

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ISSUANCE

OF SCHEDULING ORDER

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 14, 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 scheduling order to address the merits of the

petition. 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, Petitioner has not filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-00142-LJO-SMS Document 16 Filed 10/31/06 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

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 14,

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 April

19, 2006, is DENIED; and,

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

issuance of a scheduling order to address the merits of the

petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00142-LJO-SMS Document 16 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2