Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00294-2/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

GERALD FELLOWS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN J. D. HARTLEY, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 12)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 14, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 12). On

January 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendations recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 15). 

This Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On January

27, 2010, Respondent filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 16). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/28/10 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

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, including Respondent's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Respondent's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 7, 2010 (Doc. 15), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12), is DENIED;

3. The case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2