Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06155/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06155-5/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

ANDRE FLOYD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A.K. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-06155-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 39)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 April 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. 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. On May 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to extend

time. On June 19, 2006, the court granted Petitioner an additional

sixty (60) days within which to respond. On July 31, 2006,

Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-06155-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

In his objections, Petitioner contends, among other things,

that the Magistrate Judge mis-stated that he previously suffered

two attempted robberies and an assault offense on October 21, 1998. 

(F&R, at 3.) Petitioner states that the correct date is 1981. 

Petitioner is correct, and it appears there was simply a

typographical error in the Findings and Recommendations which

stated 1998, whereas the California Supreme Court's opinion stated

the offenses occurred in 1981. (Respondent's Lodged Doc. at 2.) 

Contrary to Petitioner's contention, the Magistrate's typographical

error did not have an effect and does not change the analysis of

the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Findings and

Recommended are modified to reflect that Petitioner previously

suffered two attempted robbery and an assault offense on October

21, 1981. 

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 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Beyond the objection noted above, Petitioner's

objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

as modified herein, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:03-cv-06155-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: September 22, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06155-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3