Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00378-3/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

STEPHAN LEE DONLEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00378-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition was not filed within the one-year time period provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

(Doc. 11). The Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. On December

19, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

12). In his objections, Petitioner contended that he had suffered from mental disabilities that had

Case 1:05-cv-00378-AWI -TAG Document 15 Filed 07/31/06 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

prevented him from filing a timely federal petition. 

On January 9, 2006, the Court ordered Petitioner to provide, within thirty days, additional

information regarding the nature and extent of his alleged mental disabilities. (Doc. 13). Petitioner

never responded to the Court's order for additional information regarding the issues raised in his

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 

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 Report and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections offer no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued December 8, 2005 (Doc. 11), is ADOPTED

IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close

the file.

4. This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00378-AWI -TAG Document 15 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2