Idleman v. Carey, et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 20 in full, signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. on 6/14/06. The stay in matter is LIFTED and case shall proceed on Second Amended Petition filed 4/2/03.(Marciel, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Idleman v. Carey, et al Doc. 22 Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 2 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 vs. TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al., Respondents. / 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 General Order No. 262. On January 9, 2006, 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 twenty 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 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND P. IDLEMAN, Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2211 FCD GGH P ORDER Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 2 of 2 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 and 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2006, are adopted in full; 2. The stay in this matter imposed on June 16, 2003, is lifted and this matter shall proceed on the second amended petition, filed on April 2, 2003. DATED:June 14, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. FRANK C. DAMRELL JR. Unit ed States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?