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.)

Download PDF
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?