Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATALIN HORVATH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

INS, )

 )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 67)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (Doc. 66)

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT (Docs. 17, 21,

27, 35, 48, 54, & 59)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, on January 10, 2005. (Doc. 1). 

On January 11, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim and as moot because Petitioner is no longer in custody of Respondent. 

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 68 Filed 03/03/06 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

(Doc. 67). This Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. To date,

the parties have not filed timely objections to the Report 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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed January 11, 2006 (Doc. 67), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for failure to state

a claim as it is now MOOT; 

3. Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 66), is DENIED as MOOT; 

4. All pending motions filed by Petitioner (Docs. 17, 21, 27, 35, 48, 54, & 59), are

DENIED as MOOT; and,

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 68 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2