Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02107-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Knight Cox
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

JOSEPH KNIGHT COX,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2107 LKK KJM P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent. 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 May 12, 2010, 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-one days. Respondent has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. In the objections, respondent has raised

arguments that were not discussed in its answer. 

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

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

entire file, the court finds that the arguments raised in respondent’s objections may alter the

Case 2:08-cv-02107-LKK -CKD Document 19 Filed 07/28/10 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

2

outcome of this case as to Section C.1 and the grant of petitioner’s application to vacate his

sentences on counts 8, 14, and 15. Aside from this section, however, the court finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 12, 2010, are adopted as to all

sections but for C.1 and the grant of petitioner’s application to vacate his sentences on counts 8,

14, and 15;

2. The magistrate judge shall allow petitioner an opportunity to respond to the

arguments raised in respondent’s objections; and

3. The magistrate judge shall issue new findings and recommendations as to

Section C.1 in light of the new arguments raised by respondent.

DATED: July 28, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02107-LKK -CKD Document 19 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2