JONES v. SPEARMAN, 2:13-cv-1379 JAM KJN P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151016a81
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 July 28, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendati
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 July 28, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendatio..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 July 28, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On August 20, 2015, petitioner was granted an extension of time until September 3, 2015 to file objections. Petitioner has not 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, 2015 (ECF No. 43) are adopted in full.
2. Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 36) is denied.
Source: Leagle
