Eugenio Pereida v. Hartley

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 11 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER REMANDING Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 12/14/2010. (Marrujo, C)

(HC) Eugenio Pereida v. Hartley

Doc. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EUGENIO PEREIDA, 12 13 14 15 JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 On August 8, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, claiming lack of 22 exhaustion. (Doc. 11). On November 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a 23 Findings and Recommendations recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied. 24 (Doc. 15). This Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice 25 that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On 26 November 24, 2010, Respondent filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 27 Recommendations. (Doc. 16). On November 30, 2010, Petitioner's counsel filed a response to 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-00860-OWW-JLT HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 11) ORDER REMANDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner, v.

Respondent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respondent's objections. (Doc. 17). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations is supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 4, 2010 (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. 3. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), is DENIED; This petition for writ of habeas corpus is REMANDED to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 14, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2