Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05025/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05025-8/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

JULIAN JESUS REYNOSO and )

JOHN PAUL REYNOSO, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES E. HALL, and G.J. )

GIURBINO, WARDENS, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-cv-005025-LJO-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 44)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS

Petitioners, represented by counsel, are state prisoners

proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in

favor of Respondents. These Findings and Recommendation 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. On November 9, 2007, Petitioners filed a motion to

extend time. On November 15, 2007, the court granted Petitioners

Case 1:04-cv-05025-LJO -DLB Document 48 Filed 01/25/08 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

to and through December 21, 2007, to respond. On December 21,

2007, Petitioners filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

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 Petitioners'

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioners' objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed October 22, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of

Respondents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05025-LJO -DLB Document 48 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2