Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00714/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00714-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP G. MARIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00714-REC-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 6)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT,

TERMINATING 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 August 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and that the Clerk of Court enter judgment, terminating

this action. These Findings and Recommendation 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. To

date, the parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings 

Case 1:05-cv-00714-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/20/05 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

The United States Postal Service returned the order served on Petitioner on August 31, 2005, as undeliverable.

1

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Out of Custody. However, Petitioner has not notified the court of

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

2

Recommendation.1

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 are supported by

the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed August 8, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment for respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00714-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2