From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Felker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 26, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1369 DFL KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1369 DFL KJM P.

September 26, 2006


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 16, 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. 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 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 ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 16, 2006, are adopted in full;
2. Respondent's February 23, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted; and
3. This action is dismissed.


Summaries of

Perez v. Felker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 26, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1369 DFL KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2006)
Case details for

Perez v. Felker

Case Details

Full title:JAIME ENRIQUE PEREZ, Petitioner, v. THOMAS FELKER, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1369 DFL KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Patterson v. Small

The district courts that have addressed the question have differed in their conclusions. Compare Hebert v.…

Hebert v. Marshall

The fact that a denial without prejudice was discretionary does not sufficiently connote an "improper"…