From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trainer v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 28, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1442 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1442 DFL GGH P.

August 28, 2006


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 General Order No. 262.

On July 26, 2006, 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. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court relies upon its earlier ruling in Johnson v. Finn, CIV-S-05-0385 and, for the reasons stated in an order of March 31, 2006, holds that a liberty interest exists, albeit a narrow one. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 26, 2006, are adopted to page 4, line 19; and

2. Respondent's September 15, 2005, motion to dismiss the petition on the sole ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is denied, and respondent shall file an answer within thirty days of the filed date of this order.


Summaries of

Trainer v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 28, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1442 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Trainer v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:TERRY WAYNE TRAINER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS L. CAREY, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 28, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1442 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2006)