Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05831/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05831-1/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

ERIC DARNELL JOY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES M. HARRISON, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05831-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

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 September 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

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

merits. (Doc. 18). 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 that order. 

On September 26, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation, in which Petitioner indicated that he "agrees with the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge...." (Doc. 19). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

Case 1:04-cv-05831-LJO-TAG Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings 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. The Findings and Recommendation issued September 12, 2007 (Doc. 18), is ADOPTED

IN FULL; 

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

3. 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: September 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05831-LJO-TAG Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2