Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962-5/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

DARRYL STEVENSON, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0962 REC LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #16]

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 December 1, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. On the same date,

Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily withdraw the petition. On December 15, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended Petitioner’s motion to

voluntarily withdraw the petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED. This Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections.

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 20 Filed 03/17/06 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

The Court notes that Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a traverse

shortly after the Findings and Recommendation was issued. It appears Petitioner may have filed his

motion before he had received the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court assumes

Petitioner was acting to protect his right to file a traverse pending a ruling on his motion to

voluntarily dismiss the petition. The Magistrate Judge granted this motion; however, Petitioner did

not file a traverse presumably because it was no longer necessary. 

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 December 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 16, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 20 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2