Summary
finding that the state failed to meet its burden because it did not overcome the specific evidence submitted by the petitioner showing Dixon's inadequacy
Summary of this case from Lee v. JacquezOpinion
1:01-cv-05241-OWW-DLB-HC, (Doc. 61).
June 24, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED AND CORRECTED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On May 22, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Amended and Corrected Findings and Recommendations that the single claim raised in the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is not procedurally defaulted, and the State be directed to file an answer to the instant petition within thirty days. These Amended and Corrected Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days, and any replies thereto were to be filed within five (5) court days therefrom. On May 24, 2006, Respondent filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On May 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a reply thereto.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations is supported by the record and proper analysis. Respondent's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 22, 2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The single claim raised in the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is not procedurally defaulted; and,
3. The State shall file an answer to the instant petition within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.