Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00347-1/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

The United States Postal Service returned the order served on petitioner on June 2, 2005, as undeliverable. A

notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Not in Custody. However, petitioner has not notified the court of any

change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(d).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL NUALLA HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN )

ASHCROFT,

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00347-REC-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, and is proceeding pro se with a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that this action be dismissed for Petitioner's

failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. To date, the parties have not filed timely objections

to the Findings and Recommendations.1

Case 1:05-cv-00347-REC-DLB Document 12 Filed 07/14/05 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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 26, 2005, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00347-REC-DLB Document 12 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2