Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05251/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05251-1/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

NICHOLAS E. PHILLIPS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

G. J. GIURBINO, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:02-CV-F-05251-REC-TAG HC 

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 March 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. (Doc. 36). 

The Report and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of that order. Subsequently, Petitioner

was granted an extension of time until June 6, 2005, within which to file his objections. (Doc. 38). 

On June 6, 2005, Petitioner timely filed his objections to the Report and Recommendations. (Doc.

39). 

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

Case 1:02-cv-05251-REC -TAG Document 40 Filed 07/15/05 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

27

28

2

novo review of the case. The court rules that the statement in the recommendation that the court

must also determine whether the entire trial was fundamentally unfair or unreliable in determining

ineffective assistance of counsel is not an appropriate articulation of the ineffective assistance of

counsel test under the circumstances of this action. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000);

United States v. Day, 285 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2002). However, having carefully reviewed the entire

file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations is supported by the record and the court concurs in the conclusions set forth in the

recommendation. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05251-REC -TAG Document 40 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2