Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01112-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL CONGRESS MEMBER )

ENFORCEMENT OF PLRA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01112-REC-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE AS MOOT (Doc.

6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On November 9, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, and that judgment be entered. 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. On November 21, 2005,

Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-01112-REC -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/03/06 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

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

In addition to filing objections to the recommendation,

petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate. The court

dismisses the petition for writ of mandate as moot based on the

ruling adopted by the court herein.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 9, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

4. The Petition for Writ of Mandate is DISMISSED;

3. All pending motions are DENIED; and

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01112-REC -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2