Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06211/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06211-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE R. WEDEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6211 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 12, 14]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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. Pending before the court

is Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

On July 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that

recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed because

the petition’s claim has not been exhausted. These findings and recommendations were

served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings

Case 1:04-cv-06211-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 01/22/07 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 2

and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. No objections were filed. 

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 

July 17, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed

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

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06211-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2