Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00131-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Johnson
Petitioner
Scott Kernan
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN JOHNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00131 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #23]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS [Docs. #10, 1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED with

prejudice for violating the statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the

Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The 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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00131-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 07/17/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On June 19, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 and having considered the

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

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 31, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00131-OWW -LJO Document 25 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2