Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01164-3/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

TOMMY URIOSTE,

Petitioner,

v.

MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01164-LJO-SMS (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. 16]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 20, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED as moot, Petitioner’s request to dismiss the

unexhausted claims be GRANTED, and the action proceed on the claim that there was

insufficient evidence to support the Board’s decision to deny parole. This Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed

and no party has filed objections.

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 finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:07-cv-01164-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 01/10/08 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

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 20, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT; 

3. Petitioner’s request to dismiss the unexhausted claims is GRANTED; 

4. This action shall proceed on the claim that there was insufficient evidence to

support the Board’s decision to deny parole; and,

5. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01164-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2