Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454-5/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

ANTONIO SULLIVAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE YARBOROUGH,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 02-6454 REC SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

[Doc. 30]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action issued Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. 

The Findings and Recommendations were served on both parties and any objections were to be

filed within thirty days from the date of service. On June 20, 2005, the Findings and

Recommendations addressed to Petitioner were returned to this Court with a notation that

Petitioner was “not at th[at] address.” (Court Doc. 31.) Thereafter, on July 14, 2005, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. (Court Doc. 32.) 

On August 10, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration indicating that he never

received the Findings and Recommendations despite the fact that he mailed a notice of change of

address to the Court on February 28, 2005. On August 22, 2005, the undersigned granted

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the July 14, 2005, order adopting, and directed

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 47 Filed 11/16/05 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

that the Court re-serve the Findings and Recommendations of May 27, 2005. On September 12,

2005, Petitioner filed 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 27, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 47 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2