Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01652/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01652-3/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

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 September 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be 

denied, Petitioner’s motions be dismissed as moot, and the matter be 

referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. The 

findings and recommendations were served on all parties on the same 

date. The findings and recommendations advised the parties that 

STEFAN E. EVANS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SOTO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01652-LJO-BAM-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 23)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (DOC. 17) AND DISMISSING 

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS AS MOOT (DOCS.

19, 21, 22)

ORDER REFERRING THE CASE BACK TO 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01652-LJO-SKO Document 24 Filed 10/23/13 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

objections could be filed within thirty days and replies within 

fourteen days after the filing of objections. Although the thirtyday period for the filing of objections has passed, no objections 

have 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. Having 

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Thus, the Court will adopt the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely is 

DENIED; and

2) Petitioner’s motions are DISMISSED as moot; and

3) The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for 

further proceedings, including directing Respondent to file an 

answer to the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:12-cv-01652-LJO-SKO Document 24 Filed 10/23/13 Page 2 of 2