Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00436-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER GUYTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0436 DFL DAD P

vs.

M. McKNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 25, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On June 8, 2005,

petitioner was granted an extension of time to July 5, 2005, in which to file objections. 

Petitioner’s objections were timely filed on June 28, 2005.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. In his objections, petitioner requests

that this action be dismissed without prejudice, as recommended by the magistrate judge. Having

Case 2:05-cv-00436-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 07/26/05 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

2

carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 25, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. This action is summarily dismissed because it plainly appears from the face of

the habeas petition that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief; and

3. Dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights action.

DATED: 7/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00436-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 2