WHEELER v. PRICE, 2:14-cv-0521 MCE KJN P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150312a28
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief 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 February 4, 2015, 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 find
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief 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 February 4, 2015, 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 findi..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief 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 February 4, 2015, 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. 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 February 4, 2015, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is denied; and
3. Respondent is directed to file an answer within fourteen days from the filed date of this order.
Source: Leagle
