Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01695-1/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

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

RICHARD E. MARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY A. WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01695-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS

MOOT

(Docs. 14, 15, 16, & 17)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 18, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED

because it does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

and DENIED because Petitioner's claims are frivolous and nonsensical. (Doc. 18). The alleged

petition is arguably a successive habeas petition; Petitioner’s first habeas petition (2255) was

denied October 4, 2005. The Report and Recommendation also recommended that all pending

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 06/07/07 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

motions filed by Petitioner be denied as moot. (Id.). The Report and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days from the date of service of that order. On June 4, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 19). 

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 Report 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 Report and Recommendation issued May 18, 2007 (Doc. 18), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

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

3. Petitioner's pending motion for discovery (Doc. 14), request for identity and status

(Doc. 15), request for evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16), and show cause motion (Doc. 17),

all are DENIED as MOOT; and, 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close

the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2