Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01103-7/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

BILLY WAYNE McGEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

T.L. CAREY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01103-LJO-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing be DENIED,

and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of

Respondent. These Findings and Recommendation were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

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

August 6, 2007 and September 17, 2007, respectively, Petitioner

Case 1:05-cv-01103-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 11/30/07 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

filed a motion to extend time. On August 23, 2007 and October 5,

2007, respectively, the court granted Petitioner an additional

thirty (30) days within which to respond. On October 18, 2007,

Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. On

October 24, 2007, Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner's

objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are 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, filed July 25, 2007, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

3. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, filed

February 8, 2006, is DENIED; and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01103-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2