Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617-4/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

LEROY TATE, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SCOTT KERANA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 12) AND DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS

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 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the state

court remedies. These Findings and Recommendations 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 and Recommendations.

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. 

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 14 Filed 05/10/06 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

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 20, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the state

court remedies;

3. This action is therefore DISMISSED; and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment for respondents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 14 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2