Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05486/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05486-0/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

 The Court notes that Petitioner initially filed his objections on May 10, 2005, however, it was unsigned

and therefore resubmitted on May 13, 2005. (Court Docs. 20, 21.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. PARKER,

Petitioner,

v.

M.C. KRAMER, et. al.,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-5486 REC DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

[Doc. 19]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 4, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This 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. 

On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.1

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 Recommendation is

Case 1:03-cv-05486-REC-DLB Document 23 Filed 07/15/05 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

supported by the record and proper analysis, with one correction. 

With regard to Petitioner’s first claim for relief, the recommendation indicates that “[t]o

the extent that this issue was never raised in the state judicial system on a petition for habeas

corpus, such a claim fails for lack of exhaustion.” (Findings and Recommendation, at 12.) It

was recommended that Petitioner may, at his option, move to withdraw the unexhausted claim

within thirty days from the date of service. (Findings and Recommendation, at 13.) This portion

of the recommendation was improper given that the Court simultaneously denied the claim on

the merits. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), the Court has the option,

notwithstanding exhaustion, to deny the petition on the merits and the recommendation is

therefore adopted. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis as to the merits of the petition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued April 4, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05486-REC-DLB Document 23 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2