Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00860-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH WHISTLER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-CV-0860 -LJO- WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 10, 13]

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 7, 2007, 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

Case 1:06-cv-00860-LJO-WMW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 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

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

was returned by the United States Postal Service. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service on a

party at their address of record is fully effective.

2

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 de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

June 7, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED [9];

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

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

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00860-LJO-WMW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2