Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01118-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD E. WISHART, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

 )

)

)

NEIL H. ADLER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-cv-01118 LJO YNP [DLB] (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #8]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

[Doc. #3]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO DISMISS MAGISTRATE’S

NON-RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S JULY

13, 2009 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

[Doc. #10)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation on February 17, 2010, that

recommended that Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner did not file any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation but he did file a motion for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s

actual innocence claim on March 16, 2010, (Doc. #9), and a motion to “Dismiss Magistrate’s NonResponse to Petitioner’s July 13, 2009 ‘Request for Temporary Restraining Order’” on March 17,

2010. (Doc. #10.) 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-01118-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/10 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

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no justification to modify the Findings and

Recommendation based on either of the motions that Petitioner subsequently filed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 17, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED; and 

3. Petitioner’s motion to “Dismiss Magistrate’s Non-Response...” is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-01118-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2