Colbert v. Schulteis

Filing 17

ORDER Re: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Respondent's Motion To Dismiss The Petition (Docs. 15 , 14 , 1 , 8 ) ORDER Granting Respondent's Motion To Dismiss The Petition (Doc. 14 ), ORDER Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice For Failure To Exhaust State Court Rememdies, ORDER Declining To Issue A Certificate Of Appeal And Directing The Clerk To Close The Case, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/18/2011.CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

11

Petitioner,

12
v.
13
L. L. SCHULTEIS,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv—01532–LJO-SMS-HC
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RE: RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION
(DOCS. 15, 14, 1, 8)
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION
(DOC. 14)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
STATE COURT REMEDIES

17
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE
CASE

18
19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
22
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter was referred to the Magistrate

23
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and
24
304.
25
On May 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and
26
recommendations to deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss the
27
petition on the ground of untimeliness, grant Respondent’s motion
28
1

1

to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state court

2

remedies, dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to

3

exhaust state court remedies, decline to issue a certificate of

4

appealability, and direct the clerk to close the case.

5

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties

6

on the same date, and they advised all parties that objections to

7

the findings and recommendations could be filed within thirty

8

(30) days, and replies within fourteen (14) days after the filing

9

of any objections.

10

On June 29, 2011, Respondent filed timely objections.

11

Although the time for filing a reply has passed, no reply has

12

been filed.

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

14

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

15

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

16

considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there

17

is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on

18

the points raised in the objections.

19

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

20

proper analysis.

The Court finds that the

21

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

22

1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on May 31, 2011,

23

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

24

2)

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for

25

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies is GRANTED;

26

and

27
28

3)

The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure

to exhaust state court remedies; and
2

1
2

4)

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability; and

3

5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
b9ed48

July 18, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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