Ervine v. Davis
Filing
55
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/5/2018 ADOPTING 54 Findings and Recommendations in full. Petitioner's 37 Motion for Stay/Abeyance is GRANTED. Respondent's 33 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Petitioner is ORDERED to file a notice with this Court within thirty days of a decision by the California Supreme Court on his exhaustion petition. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNIS NEWTON ERVINE,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-01916-TLN-DB
v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,
15
ORDER
Respondent.
16
Petitioner, a condemned state prisoner, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus
17
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 54.) Neither
23
party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
24
25
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
26
ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 10, 2018 (ECF No. 54), are adopted
27
28
in full;
1
1
2. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay/Abeyance (ECF No. 37) is granted;
2
3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33) is denied; and
3
4. Petitioner is ordered to file a notice with this Court within thirty days of a decision by
4
the California Supreme Court on his exhaustion petition.
5
6
Dated: March 5, 2018
7
8
9
10
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?