Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00218/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00218-2/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

The court notes that the copy of the findings and recommendations mailed 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 Rule

83-182(e).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY LEWIS SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN C. E. HARRISON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-0218 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. 7, 10]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. 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 July 17, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00218-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 10/13/06 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

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

1983). 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 

 July 17, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00218-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2