LUTZ v. PALMER, 3:11cv334/LAC/EMT. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120424980
Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 9, 2012 (doc. 23). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objecti
Summary: ORDER LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 9, 2012 (doc. 23). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objectio..
More
ORDER
LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 9, 2012 (doc. 23). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 14) is DENIED.
3. Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (doc. 21) is DENIED.
4. Respondent is directed to file an answer to the habeas petition within SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order.
Source: Leagle
