Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05433/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05433-1/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

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

by mail was returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation, “not in custody.” 

However, service on a Petitioner at his address of record is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-

183.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZEQUIEL HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 04-5433 OWW WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING PETITION

[Doc. 22]

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

U.S.C. § 2241. 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 May 2, 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. No

objections were filed.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a

Case 1:04-cv-05433-OWW -WMW Document 24 Filed 08/11/05 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

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. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

May 2, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for mootness;

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

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05433-OWW -WMW Document 24 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2