Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05171/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05171-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court notes that the copy of the findings and recommendations sent to Petitioner was returned by the United 1

States Postal Service as undeliverable. However, service on a petitioner at his address of record is fully effective. Local

Rules 83-182(f).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON PERROTON, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5171 OWW WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

 RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF PETITION AS MOOT

vs.

PAUL SCHULTZ, Warden, 

[Doc. 27]

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 1, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. These

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. No objections were

filed.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a de novo

review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). th

Case 1:04-cv-05171-OWW -WMW Document 29 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

 August 1, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case. IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Emm0d6Dated: September 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05171-OWW -WMW Document 29 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2