Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01587/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01587-4/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

ROY L. SHIVERS, III., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

GROVER TRASK, District Attorney, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01587 AWI-TAG (HC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 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 April 1, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

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

of exhaustion. (Doc. 11). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen] days from the date of service of

that order. On April 21, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations. (Doc. 12). The objections state that Petitioner should be allowed to pursue his

unexhausted claims, that he is in the process of exhausting claims, and that he has discovered errors

Case 1:06-cv-01587-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 05/05/08 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

regarding his underlying conviction.

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. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how the Magistrate Judge's conclusion

(that no claims in Petitioner's petition have been exhausted) is incorrect. Dismissal is appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued April 1, 2008 (Doc. 11), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and

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

the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01587-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 2