Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00981-7/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

 In his objections to the findings and recommendations, respondent asks that the court

1

not adopt the magistrate judge’s ruling that the record be expanded in the manner requested by

petitioner on May 31, 2005. Resp’t’s Objections at 14. Respondent’s request is not properly

brought before this court in objections to findings and recommendations. Requests for

reconsideration of a ruling made by a magistrate judge must be made in accordance with local

rule 72-303(b) & (c). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER A. TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0981 LKK KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application 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 General Order No. 262.

On March 14, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. Both parties

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 14, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s June 27, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in

part as follows:

A. Granted as to any claims arising from petitioner’s 1994, 1996 and 1998 

 parole hearings; and

B. Denied in all other respects.

3. Respondent is directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of this

order.

DATED: September 28, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2