Summary
explaining that, where the Clark pincite at issue clearly indicated that it was referring to the successiveness bar, rather than the untimeliness bar, respondent's use of the Supreme Court's Walker decision, which only discussed untimeliness, was insufficient to meet its initial burden
Summary of this case from Flowers v. FoulkOpinion
Case No. EDCV 12-657-DSF (OP)
02-26-2014
THOMAS BODNAR, Petitioner, v. RON DAVIS, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's Objections and Supplemental Objections thereto. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the First Amended Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
__________
HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER
United States District Judge
Prepared by: __________
HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA
United States Magistrate Judge