Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01547-12/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

WILLIE B. PENILTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1547 LKK CHS P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 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 27, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were to be 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. On March

26, 2009, petitioner was granted a 30 day extension of time to file his objections. Neither party

filed objections and the findings and recommendations were adopted on September 2, 2009. 

On September 28, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that

he should be granted an additional opportunity to file objections because the clerks office did not

serve him with a copy of the March 26, 2009 order granting his 30 day extension of time. 

Case 2:06-cv-01547-LKK-CHS Document 52 Filed 03/16/10 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

Petitioner’s motion was granted on November 25, 2009, and he was given an additional 30 days

to file objections. On January 14, 2010, petitioner filed a request for an additional extension of

time. That request was granted on January 22, 2010. Petitioner has now filed objections. 

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 27, 2009, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: March 15, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-01547-LKK-CHS Document 52 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2