Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00725-1/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

cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A.K. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00725-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (Doc. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING

CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 6, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1). On September 22, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

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

Case 1:05-cv-00725-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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

cd 2

because the Petition challenges the conditions, rather than the fact, of Petitioner's confinement,

and thus should have been brought as a case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4). The Report

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. On October 17, 2005,

Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 5). On

October 17, 2005, Petitioner filed an ex parte motion for appointment of a special prosecutor to

investigate his claims. (Doc. 6).

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 Recommendations are

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 Recommendations issued September 22, 2005 (Doc. 4), are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of a special investigator (Doc. 6), is DENIED as

MOOT; 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the standard form for filing

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

5. 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: November 4, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00725-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2