Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANICE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01334-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's motion to dismiss be GRANTED, and

the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED,

without prejudice, as MOOT and UNEXHAUSTED. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On September 18, 2006 and

October 25, 2006, respectively, Petitioner filed a motion to extend

time. On October 20, 2006 and November 17, 2006, respectively, the

court granted Petitioner an additional thirty (30) days within

which to respond. On November 15, 2006, Petitioner filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. However, on

November 29, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time to file

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 03/07/07 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

supplemental objections. On December 8, 2006, the court granted

Petitioner thirty (30) days within which to respond. On December

26, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief, which

the Court denied on January 11, 2007, and granted Petitioner twenty

(20) days within which to file any supplemental objections. (Court

Docs. 31, 32.) On January 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion

requesting a ruling on his petition. (court Doc. 33.) 

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 are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 28, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed June 26, 2006, is

GRANTED;

 3. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED, without prejudice, as MOOT and UNEXHAUSTED; and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2