Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00149-2/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

 On June 12, 2006, this action was reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings due 1

to the senior status of Judge Robert E. Coyle. (Court Doc. 6.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE JAMES ROBINSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNKNOWN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00149-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER TERMINATING ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

On April 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to enter

judgment, thus terminating the action. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

Case 1:06-cv-00149-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/26/06 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

the date of service of that order. To date, the parties have not

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

//

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 25, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment, thus TERMINATING this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00149-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2