Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02493/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02493-1/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 ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S WRIT - 1

2:06-CV-2493-RRB-KJM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-2493-RRB-KJM P

ORDER

Petitioner Dock McNeely (“Petitioner”), an ex-prisoner,

proceeding with the assistance of counsel, has filed an application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 24, 2007, Magistrate Judge Kimberly J, Mueller

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 5) herein, which were

served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that

any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within twenty days. Petitioner filed: (1) Objections to the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket 6; and (2) a

letter to the Court at Docket 8.

DOCK MCNEELY,

Petitioner,

vs.

BILL LOCKYER,

Respondent.

Case 2:06-cv-02493-RRB -KJM Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 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 ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S WRIT - 2

2:06-CV-2493-RRB-KJM P

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes; and, in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)© and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having both carefully and thoroughly

reviewed the same, the Court finds the Magistrate’s Findings and

Recommendations at Docket 5 to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. While Petitioner may suffer the collateral

consequences of an earlier conviction, he is currently not “in

custody” so as to provide this Court with jurisdiction to address

the writ of habeas corpus filed in this matter.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations at Docket 5, filed

on January 24, 2007, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02493-RRB -KJM Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2