Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06509/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06509-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON CLARK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6509 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 14, 15]

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 4, 2006, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations

herein. These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 01/03/07 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

The court notes that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned

1

by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. However, pursuant to Local Rule 83-

182(f), service on a party at the party’s address of record is fully effective. 

2

thirty days. No objections were filed.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

August 4, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed as moot;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2