Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD OVERSTREET, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-05799-REC-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 22)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 20)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 6, 2005, Petitioner filed an "Ex-Parte Motion For Order To Person Having Custody

Of Petitioner To Retain Custody Of Prisoner," requesting injunctive relief from this Court in the

form of an order prohibiting Petitioner's transfer to another prison on the grounds that it would

deprive Petitioner of the legal advice of his present "inmate assistant", thereby causing Petitioner

"undue hardship." (Doc. 20). On August 12, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a

Report and Recommendations recommending that Petitioner's request for injunctive relief be

DENIED. (Doc. 22). The Report and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. 

On August 16, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 24 Filed 09/22/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Recommendations. (Doc. 23). 

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 Report 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 Report and Recommendations issued August 12, 2005 (Doc. 22), are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Petitioner's request for injunctive relief (Doc. 20), is DENIED; and

3. The case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 24 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2