From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNeely v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 29, 2010
No. CIV S-10-0728 JAM KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0728 JAM KJM P.

September 29, 2010


ORDER


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 Rule 302.

On August 6, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner 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.

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 August 6, 2010, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's motion to amend or alter the judgment (Docket No. 14) is denied.

DATED: September 29, 2010.


Summaries of

McNeely v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 29, 2010
No. CIV S-10-0728 JAM KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010)
Case details for

McNeely v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:DOCK McNEELY, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 29, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0728 JAM KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010)