Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06385/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06385-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUMBERTO ROJAS-MANZANARES, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6385 REC WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS,

DENYING PETITION, AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

[Doc. 5]

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On August 9, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. 

These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. No objections were filed. Although Petitioner’s copy of the findings and

recommendations were returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation, “not in

custody,” service at a petitioner’s address of record is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

Case 1:04-cv-06385-REC-WMW Document 7 Filed 04/10/06 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

(9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and th

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

 August 9, 2005, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06385-REC-WMW Document 7 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2