Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05327/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05327-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS OWENS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

E. ROE, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:03-cv-05327-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc.

48)

ORDER VACATING THE ORDER

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DATED MARCH 12,

2007 (Doc. 44)

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 38)

ORDER DENYING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 11)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

On March 17, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. (Doc. 1). On June 26, 2003, Petitioner filed a First Amended

Petition. (Doc. 11). 

On February 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED on the

merits. (Doc. 38). This Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained

Case 1:03-cv-05327-LJO-TAG Document 53 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 3
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

notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that

order. On March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed his objections. (Doc. 43). Unbeknownst to this Court,

the objections were not entered on the Court’s docket until March 9, 2007 at 12:33 p.m. The

order adopting the Report and Recommendation signed by the District Judge did not reflect that

Petitioner had filed objections because Petitioner’s objections had yet to be entered on the

Court’s docket. The order adopting the Report and Recommendation was served on Petitioner

and, on April 3, 2007, Petitioner sent a letter to the Court inquiring about whether the Court had

received his objections. (Doc. 46). On April 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to amend or

alter the order adopting the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that he had timely filed

his objections. (Doc. 48). 

It appears to the Court that Petitioner timely filed his objections and therefore the original

order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should have reflected that

fact. Therefore, Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the original order adopting the Report and

Recommendation will be granted and a new order is issued reflecting that Petitioner filed his

objections and that his objections have been duly noted and considered by the Court.

Accordingly, 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 Report and

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present

no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion to amend or alter the order adopting the Report and

Recommendation of February 12, 2007 (Doc. 48), is GRANTED:

2. The order adopting the Report and Recommendation entered on March 12, 2007,

(Doc. 44), is VACATED and the judgment entered on March 12, 2007,

VACATED;

3. The Report and Recommendation of February 12, 2007 (Doc. 38), is ADOPTED

IN FULL after consideration of Petitioner’s objections;

Case 1:03-cv-05327-LJO-TAG Document 53 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. The first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 11), is DENIED; and

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER a new JUDGMENT and close the

file. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05327-LJO-TAG Document 53 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3