Opinion
Case No. CV 15-5079-RSWL (GJS)
05-25-2017
LAMARR BROWN, Petitioner v. KIM HOLLAND, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition and all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this action, Respondent's Motion To Dismiss [Dkt. 28, "Motion"], Petitioner's Motion for a Rhines stay [Dkt., 31, "Stay Motion"], the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Petitioner's Objections to the Report. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated.
Nothing in the Objections affects or alters the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. Having completed its de novo review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. In the Objections (at p. 2 and in appended Motion), Petitioner states that, should the Report be accepted, he elects Option Two as set forth in the Report at p. 11, lines 1-3, namely, to dismiss both Ground Three and the Vargas subclaim of Ground Four of the First Amended Petition and to proceed with the remaining claims, i.e., Grounds One, Two, and the misinformation subclaim of Ground Four of the First Amended Petition.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Respondent's Motion is GRANTED;
(2) Petitioner's Stay Motion is DENIED;
(3) Petitioner's request to exercise Option Two is GRANTED and the First Amended Petition is deemed amended to delete Ground Three and the Vargas subclaim of Ground Four;
(4) Within sixty days of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an Answer to the First Amended Petition as amended herein, namely, to Grounds One, Two, and the misinformation subclaim of Ground Four, and lodge the remaining portions of the state record; and
(5) Within sixty days of the filing of the Answer, Petitioner may file and serve a Reply that responds to the matters and argument set forth in the Answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: 5/25/2017
s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S.W. LEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE