Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Judge. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 12, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Judge. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 12, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations ..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 12, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2014, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's July 1, 2013 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied; and
3. Respondent is directed to file an answer to the petition within 60 days of the date of this order.
