Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05127/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05127-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE A. NUNEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

RICHARD EARLY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-5127 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a 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. 

On February 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed 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 thirty days. 

Petitioner filed objections on March 21, 2005.

Case 1:03-cv-05127-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 05/03/05 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 this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

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

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has not shown the state court’s

adjudication of Petitioner’s claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

February 16, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

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

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05127-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2