Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05250/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05250-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXIQUIO HERNANDEZ SALAS, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:02-cv-05250 OWW TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 22)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

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

the Petition does not allege grounds that would entitled Petitioner to habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 22). 

The Report and Recommendation was 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. Subsequently, Petitioner

was granted an extension of time until March 30, 2005, within which to file his objections. (Doc.

25). On March 28, 2005, Petitioner timely filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 26). 

Case 1:02-cv-05250-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 05/23/05 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 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 February 2, 2005, (Doc. 22) is 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 21, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05250-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2