Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01172/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01172-0/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

WARREN LEE BOWIE, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1172 DFL GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent. 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 February 3, 2005, 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. Respondent

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. The court does not adopt the magistrate judge’s discussion of Dannenberg and

Case 2:03-cv-01172-DFL-GGH Document 20 Filed 09/26/05 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

2

its possible effect. Nor does the court find it necessary in this case to consider whether

Dannenberg eliminates, or more possibly, alters the liberty interest in parole created by state law. 

Assuming that such a liberty interest exists and that the liberty interest is defined as stated in

Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 2003), no violation of that liberty interest occurred

here for the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 3, 2005, are adopted to the

extent indicated above; and

2. The petition is denied.

DATED: 9/26/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01172-DFL-GGH Document 20 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2