Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05370/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05370-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD W. LAWLEY, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5370 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING PETITION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On September 27, 2005, 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

days. Petitioner filed objection October 21, 2005. 

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

(9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and

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

In his objections to the findings and recommendations, Petitioner claims that the court did

Case 1:03-cv-05370-AWI-WMW Document 22 Filed 12/06/05 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

not accurately describe his contentions regarding his prior conviction, because the court did not

mention his contention regarding “suggested identification.” The court finds no merit to this

claim. In the findings and recommendations, the court did not provide a complete list of

plaintiff’s contentions regarding the defects in his 1989 conviction. Rather, the court merely

summarized those contentions, and then explained why Petitioner’s 1989 conviction could not be

used to challenge his 1998 conviction. An exhaustive listing of Petitioner’s contentions

regarding his 1989 conviction was unnecessary to the court’s analysis. 

 Petitioner also objects to the findings and recommendations on the ground that he did not

receive a copy of Respondent’s answer to the petition. A review of the court file, however,

reveals that the answer was served on Petitioner at his address of record. The court further notes

that because he was served with a copy of the findings and recommendations, Petitioner has had

notice and an opportunity to raise any substantive objections he may have to the findings and

recommendations. Petitioner has not raised any such substantive objections. Finally, Petitioner

states that he was unaware that this case had been transferred from Magistrate Judge O’Neill to

Magistrate Judge Wunderlich. Again, the relevant order was served on Petitioner at his address

of record, and Petitioner cannot show prejudice. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

 September 27, 2005, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied;

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

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05370-AWI-WMW Document 22 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2