Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05316/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05316-0/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

1The court notes that the copy of the findings and recommendations served on Petitioner

by mail was returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation, “not in custody.” 

However, service on a Petitioner at his address of record is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-

183.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GARCIA MURILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 04-5316 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING PETITION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On March 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. No objections were filed.1

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

Case 1:04-cv-05316-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 06/15/05 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

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

March 16, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05316-OWW -WMW Document 17 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2