Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06044/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06044-1/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

ELBERT HUSTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

G. STRATTON, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06044-REC-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The original petition was filed on August 3, 2004. (Doc. 1). Pursuant to an order of the

Court, Petitioner filed a first amended petition on January 6, 2005. (Doc. 11). Pursuant to yet

another order of the Court, on March 18, 2005 Petitioner filed his second amended petition.

(Doc. 15)

On June 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED

with prejudice because, despite several opportunities to amend the petition to state cognizable

and exhausted federal claims, Petitioner had failed to do so. (Doc. 16). The Report and

Recommendations were 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, or by August 1, 2005. (Id.). On

Case 1:04-cv-06044-REC-TAG Document 18 Filed 09/20/05 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

September 2, 2005, Petitioner filed untimely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations. (Doc. 17). Petitioner states no substantive objections; instead, he merely

requests that the District Judge review the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations to

dismiss the petition. (Id.). 

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 Report and Recommendations 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 Report and Recommendations issued June 29, 2005, (Doc. 16) are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 15) is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06044-REC-TAG Document 18 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2