Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05786/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05786-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MISAEL GUZMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, DIRECTOR, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5786 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 9, 16]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 1, 2004, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations

that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied. These findings and recommendations were

served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On February 8, 2005, the court

granted Respondent an extension of time until March 14, 2005, to file objections. No

Case 1:04-cv-05786-OWW -WMW Document 21 Filed 05/02/05 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

objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 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 issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

December 1, 2004, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED;

3. Respondent shall file a responsive pleading to this petition in compliance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05786-OWW -WMW Document 21 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2