Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01383-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Lovell Gilliam
Petitioner
James D. Hartley
Respondent

Document Text:

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

CARL LOVELL GILLIAM,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01383-OWW-DLB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. 12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 2, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On December 21, 2009, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. (Court Doc. 13.) 

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 Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

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

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 2, 2009, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Petitioner’s claim that there was a violation of the state procedures and regulations

is DISMISSED; and

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2