Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01262/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01262-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHUE YANG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01262-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

CLOSE ENTIRE ACTION

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 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's motion to dismiss be GRANTED,

that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, with

prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this

action in its entirety. 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 June 6, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 26.) 

Case 1:05-cv-01262-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 06/26/06 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 27, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss, filed March 8, 2006, is

GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, with

prejudice; and,

4. The Clerk of Court CLOSE this entire action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01262-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2