Newland

Richardson v. Newland

Good Law
342 F. Supp. 2d 900·2004 WL 2390038·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28341
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2004CIV.S-97-2318WBS DAD PCalifornia20,792 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

AMENDED ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed this 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 September 13, 2004, 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. Respondents have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Respondents have also filed a motion seeking an order directing that the writ will be granted only in the event that retrial of the case or a stay pending appeal does not occur within a reasonable time. Petitioner’s counsel has no opposition to the latter request.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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…

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.