Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00777/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00777-8/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

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

Petitioner is a federal 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 through 304.

On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations to deny. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition. 

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties on the 

same date. The findings and recommendations advised the parties 

that objections could be filed within thirty days and replies within 

fourteen days after the filing of objections. On October 6, 2014, 

Petitioner filed objections. Although over fourteen days have 

COREY BURGESS,

 Petitioner,

v.

HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00777-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 54)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

PETITION (DOC. 44)

Case 1:12-cv-00777-AWI-SKO Document 61 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

passed since the filing of objections, no reply to the objections 

has been filed.

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 recommendations based on the 

points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on August 1, 2014, 

are ADOPTED in full; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the petition is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00777-AWI-SKO Document 61 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2