Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00641/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00641-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EDMUNDO PARDO RUBI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 21)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS

MOOT (Docs. 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, & 19)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition should have been filed as a motion for reconsideration in the trial court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 21). The Findings and Recommendations included a recommendation that all

pending motions be denied. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

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

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 23 Filed 03/06/08 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

2

that order. To date, the parties in this case have not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.

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 concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 22, 2008 (Doc. 21), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; 

3. All pending motions in this case (Docs. 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, & 19), are DENIED as

MOOT; and, 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close the

file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 23 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2