Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01554-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. ROSE, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES HARTLEY, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-01554-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

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.

On February 1, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to

exhaust and as untimely. (Doc. 9). On July 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case

filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

dismissed because the petition was untimely. (Doc. 14). This Findings and Recommendations

was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty

days from the date of service of that order. On August 4, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 19). On August 11, 2008,

Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. 20). 

Case 1:07-cv-01554-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 08/15/08 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

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 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 Recommendations, filed July 14, 2008 (Doc. 14), is ADOPTED

IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), is GRANTED;

3. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; and

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

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01554-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 08/15/08 Page 2 of 2