Filed: Aug. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2013
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. 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 Rule 302. On June 13, 2013, 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 recommendatio
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. 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 Rule 302. On June 13, 2013, 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 recommendation..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
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 Rule 302.
On June 13, 2013, 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 fourteen days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and petitioner has filed a reply.
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 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 June 13, 2013, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's September 26, 2012 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is denied;
3. Respondent shall file and serve an answer within thirty days from the service of this order and petitioner's traverse shall be filed and served thirty days thereafter.
