Erick Daniel Gonzalez v. A Hedgpeth

Filing 51

ORDER Re: Findings And Recommendations (Doc. 49 ), ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion For Extension Of Time And For A Stay To Exhaust State Court Claims (Doc. 33 ), ORDER Scheduling Deadline For Petitioner To File A Traverse, Deadline For Filing A Traverse: Thirty (30) Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/10/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11 ERIK DANIEL GONZALEZ,

Case No. 1:12-cv-001244-LJO-BAM-HC

12

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 49)

Petitioner,

13
14

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR A
STAY TO EXHAUST STATE COURT CLAIMS
(DOC. 33)

v.

15
16
17

A. HEDGPETH,
Respondent.

DEADLNE FOR FILING A TRAVERSE:
THIRTY (30) DAYS

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER SCHEDULING DEADLINE FOR
PETITIONER TO FILE A TRAVERSE

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

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and
recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the
proceedings to permit him to exhaust state court remedies, which was
filed on December 2, 2013.

The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to schedule
the deadline for Petitioner to file a traverse to Respondent’s
1

1
1 answer to the petition.

The findings and recommendations were

2 served on all parties on the same date.

The findings and

3 recommendations advised the parties that objections could be filed
4 within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing
5 of objections.

Although the thirty-day period for the filing of

6 objections has passed, no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),

7

8 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having

9 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report
10 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
11 Thus, the Court will adopt the findings and recommendations in full.
12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

13

1) The findings and recommendations filed on January 13, 2015,

14 are ADOPTED in full; and
2) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings to exhaust

15

16 state court remedies is DENIED; and
3) Petitioner may FILE a traverse to the answer previously

17

18 filed by Respondent no later than thirty (30) days after the date of
19 service of this order.
20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22

Dated:

March 10, 2015

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In order to avoid delay, the Court will set the deadline for filing the traverse in this order instead of
remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge to do so.
2