Hines v. Davis, 2:98-cv-0784-TLN-EFB DP. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180222c09
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state death-row prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 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 July 28, 2017, 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 four
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state death-row prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 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 July 28, 2017, 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 fourt..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state death-row prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 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 July 28, 2017, 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. (ECF No. 331.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2017, are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's motion to expand the record (ECF No. 264) is denied without prejudice;
3. Respondent will be directed to file a motion for summary judgment on all remaining issues according to a briefing schedule set by the Court; and
4. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including setting a status conference or a briefing schedule on a motion for summary judgment.
Source: Leagle
