Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00498-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO SOLIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

C. M. HARRISON, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0498 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #15]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

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 September 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On November 30,

2005, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and

directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On January 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Missing Notice” in which

Petitioner stated that he never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation. Petitioner declared he was not given an opportunity to file objections and

Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 03/31/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

requested that the Court give him an opportunity. Therefore, on February 16, 2006, Petitioner’s

“Missing Notice” was construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure § 60(b), and said motion was granted. Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file

objections. The order was served on Petitioner along with a copy of the September 15, 2005,

Findings and Recommendation. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has failed to

respond in any manner. 

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 finds that the Findings

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued September 15, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2