Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01962-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD E. HIGGERSON, No. CIV-S-00-1962 MCE/JFM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

LOU BLANAS, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se,

has filed this application 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

General Order No. 262.

On May 31, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:00-cv-01962-MCE -JFM Document 142 Filed 09/30/05 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

2

On July 8, 2005, petitioner was granted an additional thirty days

to file his objections. On July 18, 2005, petitioner filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. On July 20,

2005, respondents filed a reply. On August 4, 2005, petitioner

filed supplemental objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 31, 2005, are

adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s May 20, 2002, motion to file a third

amended petition is denied;

3. Petitioner’s July 5, 2001, motion for evidentiary

hearing is denied; and

4. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

denied.

DATED: September 30, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-01962-MCE -JFM Document 142 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2