Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00069-6/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

 On September 8, 2006, the Findings and Recommendations were returned to this Court as “undeliverable.” 1

(Court Doc. 24.) Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f) each party is under a continuing duty to inform the Court of any

change of address. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of record of the party is effective

service. Local Rule 83-182(f). The Findings and Recommendations were subsequently re-served on October 2,

2006. (Court Doc. 25.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE T. MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY BYRD, District Administrator of

Region I Parole Office

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-069 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 30,

2006, AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE

[Doc. 23]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. 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. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections.

1

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00069-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 11/27/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 30, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent. This

terminates this action in its entirety.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00069-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2