Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06313-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE EVERETT, 

Petitioner, 

v.

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden, et al.

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

1:04-cv-06313-REC-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS (Doc. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 24, 2004, Petitioner filed the original petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. (Doc. 1).

The form petition set forth a single ground for relief, i.e., that the Board of Prisons has

promulgated and applied a policy limiting Petitioner’s good-time credits to an amount less than

that to which he claims he is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). (Doc. 1, p. 2.) . On February

23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case ordered Petitioner to file an amended

petition that would include information from which the Magistrate Judge could determine

whether Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition. (Doc. 5). 

On March 9, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended petition in which he conceded that he had not

exhausted his administrative remedies. (Doc. 6). 

Case 1:04-cv-06313-REC-TAG Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 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

On April 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation

recommending the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because Petitioner

had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the petition. (Doc. 6). This Report

and Recommendation was 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. To date, the parties have

not filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed April 27, 2005 ( Doc. 7) is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06313-REC-TAG Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2