Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00055-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Jose Amesquita
Petitioner
Rod Hickman
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

JUAN JOSE AMESQUITA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ROD HICKMAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00055-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 28)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 7)

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 August 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that the

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because the Petition was not filed within

the one-year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 28). The Report and

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

within fifteen days from the date of service of that order. On September 18, 2006, Petitioner filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29). 

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 Report and Recommendation is supported by the

Case 1:05-cv-00055-LJO-JDP Document 30 Filed 10/04/06 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

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued August 28, 2006 (Doc. 28), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 7), is DISMISSED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close the

file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00055-LJO-JDP Document 30 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2