Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01000/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01000-3/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 cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCKY LEE POWELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-01000 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #6]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 21, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner

to habeas corpus relief. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be

DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and enter

judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within ten (10) court days of the date of service of the order. 

On December 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to Review Habeas

Case 1:06-cv-01000-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 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 cd 2

Corpus.” The Court hereby CONSTRUES the motion as Petitioner’s 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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. Petitioner has simply filed the

wrong type of action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 21, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for claims pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

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

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01000-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2