Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01198-4/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

BRIAN W. THOMAS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-01198-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

GROUND SIX OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 16)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

On September 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court.

On November 8, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Ground Six in the instant

petition. (Doc. 16). On August 16, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a

Findings and Recommendation recommending the Motion to Dismiss be granted and that

Ground Six be dismissed. (Doc. 19). This Findings and Recommendation was served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen days from the date

of service of that order. To date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. Indeed, on August 17, 2007, counsel for Petitioner filed a response in which

Case 1:05-cv-01198-LJO -DLB Document 21 Filed 09/21/07 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

he indicated he concurred in the Findings and Recommendation that Ground Six was timebarred. (Doc. 20). 

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, filed August 16, 2007 (Doc. 19), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

3. Ground Six in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED;

and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to REMAND the case to the Magistrate Judge

assigned to the case for further proceedings on the remaining grounds for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01198-LJO -DLB Document 21 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2