Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194-6/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

THOMAS GLEN WYRICK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

Acting Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01194 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #15]

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #10]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Linda Buchalter, Esq.

On September 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be DENIED. 

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

objections were to be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of the order. The time for filing

objections has passed, and no party has filed objections. 

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, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis,

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 10/10/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued September 5, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED;

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2