McCoy v. Horrel

Full title: ALEXANDER McCOY, Petitioner, v. ROBERT HORREL, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2009

No. CIV S-08-0793 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-0793 JAM EFB P.

March 12, 2009

ORDER

JOHN MENDEZ, District Judge

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 January 29, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 29, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent's June 20, 2008 motion to dismiss is denied;

3. Respondent is directed to file and serve an answer, and not a motion, responding to the application within 60 days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases; and,

4. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of the answer.