Reddick v. Felker

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 01/12/2009 ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by T. Felker. Respondent shall file his answer to petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus within 60 days. (Streeter, J)

Download PDF
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. T. FELKER, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 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 October 29, 2008, 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. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLINTON MORRIS REDDICK, Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1147 JAM KJM P 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 / redd1147.806hc Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 29, 2008, are adopted in full; and 2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) is denied. 3. Respondent shall file his answer to petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus within sixty days. DATED: January 12, 2009 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED 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?