Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00531-4/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

STEPHEN R. FEGAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SCRIBNER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00531-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 July 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, as a successive petition. These

Findings and Recommendations 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 14,

2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations. 

//

//

Case 1:06-cv-00531-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/19/06 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

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 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Although Petitioner claims that the present second

petition is a completely different petition from the first

petition, it is nonetheless successive. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). 

Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the

Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 18, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED,

without prejudice, as a successive petition; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00531-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2