Cedric Taylor v. Sean Moore
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CEDRIC TAYLOR, Case No. 2:22-cv-08708-FMO (JPR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SEAN MOORE, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 18 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 18.) Further, the Court has engaged in a 20 de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 21 22 It is undisputed that the Petition is facially untimely by more than ten 23 months. (Report at 7 and n.4.) The Report concluded that Petitioner failed to 24 satisfy the “actual innocence” exception of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), 25 and recommended that the Petition be dismissed as untimely. For the following 26 reasons, Petitioner’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 17) do not warrant a 27 change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or…