Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02670/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02670-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LEROY STEWART, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2670 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner 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 October 23, 2007, 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. On

February 12, 2008, after several extensions of time, petitioner filed objections to those findings

and recommendations. On February 29, 2008, in response to petitioner’s objections, the

magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations which corrected a factual error in

the original findings and recommendations. Because the factual correction did not change the

magistrate judge’s analysis in any way, and in light of petitioner’s detailed objections to the

Case 2:03-cv-02670-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 03/04/08 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

previously filed findings and recommendations, no time for filing additional objections was

provided.

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 February 29, 2008 amended findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended findings and recommendations filed February 29, 2008, are

adopted in full; and

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

DATED: March 3, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-02670-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2