From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bettencourt v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2010
No. CIV S-07-2246 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-2246 FCD DAD P.

February 2, 2010


ORDER


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 8, 2009, 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-one days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and respondent has filed a reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 8, 2009, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.


Summaries of

Bettencourt v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2010
No. CIV S-07-2246 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010)
Case details for

Bettencourt v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:ROGER BETTENCOURT, Petitioner, v. MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-07-2246 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010)