Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00206/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00206-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304. 

On August 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations that Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the 

proceedings be denied. The findings and recommendations were served 

on all parties on the same date. The findings and recommendations 

advised the parties that objections could be filed within thirty 

days and replies within fourteen days after the filing of 

objections. On September 26, 2013, Petitioner filed objections. 

W. C. SPIVEY, III,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00206-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 35)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR A STAY (DOCS. 30, 12, 34)

Case 1:12-cv-00206-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 2
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

Although over fourteen days have passed since the filing of 

objections, no reply to the objections has been filed.

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. The 

undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has 

considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there is 

no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the 

points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERD that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on August 26, 2013, 

are ADOPTED in full; and 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:12-cv-00206-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 2