Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628-2/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARMON WARREN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

D. L. RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1628 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #6]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure

to state a cognizable federal claim. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties

and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file an amended

petition. On March 16, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order correcting the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/31/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

Recommendation. The Findings and Recommendation were amended so that the words “with leave

to amend” were stricken. The Magistrate Judge found that leave to amend should not be granted

because an amendment would serve no purpose as no tenable claim for relief could be made should

the petitioner be allowed to amend. The order also granted Petitioner an additional thirty (30) days to

file objections to the corrected Findings and Recommendation. Over thirty (30) days have passed an

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:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 26, 2006, which was amended on

March 16, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2