Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00055-7/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS ALVAREZ-MEIJA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

K. PROSPER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00055 LJO SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #18]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS [Docs. #1, 14]

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 December 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be GRANTED and the petition be

DISMISSED as untimely. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the Clerk of Court be

DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

the order. 

On December 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to

Case 1:06-cv-00055-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

the Findings and Recommendation. The motion was granted and the deadline for filing objections

was moved to February 12, 2007. Petitioner filed a second motion for extension of time on

January 19, 2007. That motion was also granted and Petitioner was granted until February 15, 2007,

to file his objections. The time for filing objections has now passed and no party has filed objections.

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 Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 18, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00055-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2