Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00356/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00356-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES D. VILLACRES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

K. M. POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00356-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 12)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 7)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending that the District Judge deny Petitioner's Motion for Injunctive and

Declaratory Relief regarding his potential transfer to another prison facility. (Doc. 12). The Report

and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On August 29, 2007, Petitioner filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, indicating that he did not

contest the Findings and Recommendation because his transfer had already taken place. (Doc. 14). 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-LJO -TAG Document 18 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

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, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 9, 2007 (Doc. 12), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Petitioner's Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 7), is DENIED; and

3. The case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00356-LJO -TAG Document 18 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2