Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01680-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID TUGGLE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

M.E. SPEARMAN, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-1680 KJM DAD P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On April 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 

the findings and recommendations and respondent has affirmatively notified the court that he will 

not file objections. See ECF No. 17. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01680-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 05/27/15 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

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

the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 6, 2015, are adopted; 

 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is denied; and 

3. Within sixty days of the date of this order, respondent is directed to file an answer to 

petitioner’s habeas petition, together with all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues 

presented in the petition. 

DATED: May 27, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01680-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2