Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06153-0/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

LOUIS JACINTO ORTA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06153 OWW TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

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 January 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition does not state grounds that would entitled Petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

and thus the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's claims. (Doc. 10). The Findings and

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

filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of that order. February 24, 2005, Petitioner filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 11). 

Case 1:04-cv-06153-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 05/19/05 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

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 Recommendations are supported by the

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

Judge's analysis. Petitioner offers no reason why he has not proceeded in the sentencing court in the

District of Kentucky or filed the requisite motion to the applicable court of appeals to file a

successive application under 28 U.S.C. 2244 (b)(3). 

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 27, 2005, (Doc. 10) are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

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

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

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06153-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2