Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00450-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HENRY JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

D. G. ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0450 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

DIRECTING RESPONSE ON THE

MERITS

ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition 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 Rule 72-302. 

On February 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground the complaint is time-barred be denied. This

Report and Recommendation was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections

to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days. 

Over thirty days have passed and Respondent has not filed objections.

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 03/23/07 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 2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the Report and

Recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 8, 2007, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as time-barred is DENIED; respondent

shall respond to the petition on the merits not later than 30 days from the date of service

of this order.

3. This matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2