Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01257-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIJAH WHITE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

)

DEBRA DEXTER, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-01257 LJO SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #20]

ORDER DENYING GROUND NINE OF THE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY

[Doc. #18]

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 16, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended ground eight of the petition be DENIED with prejudice, and Petitioner’s motion for

discovery be DISMISSED as moot. The 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. 

Case 1:07-cv-01257-IEG -PCL Document 23 Filed 05/14/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On May 6, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner 

takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s reference to ground eight. Petitioner is correct that the

Magistrate Judge referred to the wrong number; the Findings and Recommendation actually

addressed ground nine of the petition. Petitioner also argues that his request for discovery should be

granted. Nevertheless, he does not contest that his challenge to the use of the 1987 conviction to

enhance his current sentence, i.e., ground nine, is without merit. 

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections, except for the reference to the

incorrect number of the claim for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued April 16, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Ground Nine of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; 

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery is DISMISSED as moot;

4. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings; and

5. As this is not a final order disposing of all claims, a Certificate of Appealability is not

required. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253, 1291; Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01257-IEG -PCL Document 23 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 2