Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06028/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06028-0/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

The United States Postal Service returned the order served on petitioner on March 24, 2005, as undeliverable.

A notation on the envelope indicated, “No longer housed here." However, petitioner has not notified the court of any change

in address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA LEE WARNE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD ROGERS, SHERIFF, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-06028-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 16)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and judgment be entered for Respondent. These Findings and

Recommendation was 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. To date, the parties have not filed

timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.1

Case 1:03-cv-06028-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 05/02/05 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, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by

the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 10, 2005, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court ENTER judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06028-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2