Carlyle v. Marshall
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/23/2009 ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 7 Motion to Dismiss filed by John Marshall. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)
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. JOHN MARSHALL, et al., Respondents. / 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 December 5, 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. January 5, 2009, petitioner filed his objections as well as a request for extension of time to file his objections. Good cause appearing, his objections are deemed timely filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 1 ORDER DOUGLAS RANDALL CARYLE, Petitioner, 2:08-cv-1736-GEB-GGH-P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's January 5, 2009, request for an extension of time (Docket No. 13) is granted; petitioner's objections are deemed timely filed; 2. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2008, are adopted in full; and 3. Respondent's September 3, 2008, motion to dismiss (Docket No. 7) is granted.
D a te d : January 23, 2009
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. U n i t e d 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?