Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01383-7/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

TIMOTHY EARL HISSONG, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-01383-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM FOUR

OF PETITION

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR

ISSUANCE OF SCHEDULING ORDER

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 4, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that Claim Four of the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under §

2254, and the matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

issuance of a scheduling order. These Findings and Recommendation

were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service

of that order. To date, Petitioner has not filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:07-cv-01383-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/26/08 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

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 are supported by

the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 4, 2008,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Claim Four of the Petition is DISMISSED for failure to

state a cognizable claim under § 2254; and,

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

issuance of a scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01383-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2