Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06032/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06032-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY JOSEPH CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6032 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 17]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 6, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. 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. 

On November 17, 2005, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings 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, including Petitioner's

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

Case 1:04-cv-06032-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 02/16/06 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

 The Court notes that with regard to Claims Three and Four of the petition being procedurally defaulted, 1

Petitioner not only failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of the procedural bar, he also failed to demonstrate cause

and prejudice or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if the Court did not review the claims. 

However, in any event, the claims fail on the merits for the reasons explained in the Findings and Recommendations,

at 12-16.)

2

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 1

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 6, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended petition, filed

February 7, 2006, is DENIED as MOOT, as the Court denied Petitioner’s request

to amend the petition on January 25, 2005; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06032-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2