Brinkley v. Tilton

Full title: JAMES A. BRINKLEY, Petitioner, v. JAMES TILTON, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 10, 2007

2:06-cv-2189-GEB-GGH-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2007)

Opinion

2:06-cv-2189-GEB-GGH-P.

August 10, 2007

ORDER

GARLAND BURRELL JR., District Judge

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 June 12, 2007, 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. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 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 June 12, 2007, are adopted in full; and

2. The respondent's January 5, 2007, motion to dismiss is granted.