Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , 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 October 19, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the fin
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , 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 October 19, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the find..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 October 19, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd 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 October 19, 2015 are adopted; and
2. Petitioner's motion to re-instate the stay of this action (Doc. No. 35) is denied; and
3. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. No. 36) is granted, and petitioner is directed to file a traverse in support of his exhausted claims within sixty days of any order adopting these findings and recommendations.
