Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01608-2/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

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

J. WOODFORD, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1608-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

On December 19, 2005, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 was transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Central

District of California, Western Division. (Doc. 1). 

On May 3, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed

because of Petitioner’s failure to prosecute by responding to the Court order of February 22, 2006

that required that Petitioner either file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay

the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 3). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of

service of that order. To date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01608-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 07/31/06 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

2

Recommendations.

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 Recommendations is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 3, 2006 (Doc. 5), are ADOPTED

IN FULL;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01608-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2