Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00759-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Nivette
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. NIVETTE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 07-0759 LKK DAD P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein 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 twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the almost all of the findings and recommendations to be supported by

the record and by proper analysis.

Case 2:07-cv-00759-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 03/07/08 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

2

The court observes that the Findings and Recommendations appear to contain an error

with regards to the date on which the California Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s state

habeas petition: the denial occurred on June 14, 2006, not 2005, as stated in the Findings and

Recommendations. See Defendant’s Lodged Document No. 5. The court therefore declines to

adopt the magistrate judge’s findings to the extent that they include this erroneous reference. See

Findings and Recommendations at 2, 14. This error, however, does not undermine the magistrate

judge’s remaining findings nor does it cause the court to conclude that the recommendations are

unsupported or otherwise improper.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 20, 2007, are adopted to

the extent described herein; and

2. Respondent’s August 2, 2007 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: March 6, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00759-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2