Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00777/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00777-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY BURGESS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS, )

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—777-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS

OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 41)

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 40)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE RE: TRANSFER (DOCS. 35, 36)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and

303. 

On January 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations that Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief

be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on

Petitioner by mail on the same date and informed the parties that

objections could be filed within thirty days of service, and any

reply to objections could be filed within fourteen days of the

1

Case 1:12-cv-00777-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 03/20/13 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

filing of any objections. 

On January 29, 2013, Petitioner filed a document entitled,

“Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations,” in which he stated he had been transferred to

Florence, Colorado, and not to another institution. (Doc. 41,

7.) In the motion, Petitioner requested that the Court vacate

and set aside the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 19.) 

The Court thus CONSTRUES Petitioner’s motion as objections to the

findings and recommendations which are directed to the District

Judge.

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. 

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

considered the objections. The undersigned has determined there

is no need to modify the findings and recommendation to deny the

motions based on the points raised in the objections. The Court

finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 8, 2013

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2) Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief in the form of

an order to show cause regarding transfer are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00777-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 2