Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454-1/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

The United States Postal Service returned the order served on petitioner on June 20, 2005, as undeliverable. A

notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Not at this address. However, petitioner has not notified the court

of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO SULLIVAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MIKE YARBOROUGH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:02-cv-06454-REC-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 30)

ORDER DENYING 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 May 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and the Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor or

Respondent. 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. To

date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings

and Recommendations.1

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 32 Filed 07/14/05 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

28 182(d). 

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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 27, 2005, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 32 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2