Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01012/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01012-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Hartley
Respondent
Jack D. Riley
Petitioner

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

JACK D. RILEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

 )

JAMES HARTLEY, Warden, )

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv—01012-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 23, 20)

ORDER REFERRING THE ACTION TO THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DIRECT THE

FILING OF A RESPONSE TO THE

PETITION

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 and

304. 

On June 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations recommending that the Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition be denied and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be referred to the Magistrate Judge for directions

concerning the issuance of a further response to the petition. 

These findings and recommendations were served on all parties.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01012-AWI-SKO Document 24 Filed 08/25/10 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

The period for filing objections has passed, but no objections

have been filed.

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 recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on June 21, 2010,

are ADOPTED in full; and 

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

DENIED; and

3. The matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to issue

directions to Respondent to file an answer to the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 25, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01012-AWI-SKO Document 24 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2