Warden

Kyle Whitsides v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20258:25-cv-00348California642 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE WHITESIDES, Case No. 8:25-cv-0348-MRA-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

14 WARDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

15 Respondent. 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 1; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 13; Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to 20 Dismiss, Dkt. No. 17; Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge issued on July 8, 2025 (“Report”), Dkt. No. 19; Petitioner’s Objections to the 22 Report, Dkt. No. 22; and all of the records and files herein. 23 The Report recommends denial of the Petition as untimely. (Dkt. No. 19.) The 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 25 Petitioner has objected and is not persuaded by the Objections. Petitioner’s 26 objections (Dkt. No. 22) do not …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.