Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LAQUAN TRICE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

M. McDONALD, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:11-cv—00951-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 37)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION

(DOCS. 18, 20) AND DIRECTING THE

RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO THE

PETITION IN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR A STAY

(DOCS. 21, 24)

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 March 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations to deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition, to dismiss Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the

proceedings as moot, to direct Respondent to file a response to

the petition within forty-five (45) days, and to direct the

1

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/15/12 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

parties to proceed in accordance with the Court’s previous order

of June 14, 2011, concerning the filing of a response and

traverse.

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties. 

Although the findings and recommendations advised that objections

could be filed within thirty (30) days of service, the period for

filing objections has passed without the filing of any

objections.

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 were supported by the record and

proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on March 23, 2012,

are ADOPTED in full; and 

2. The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is

DENIED; and

3. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a response to the petition

within forty-five days of service of this order; and

4) The parties are DIRECTED to proceed in accordance with

the Court’s previous order of June 14, 2011, concerning the

filing of a response and traverse.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/15/12 Page 2 of 2