Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01487/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01487-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

J. WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1487 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #10]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

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 June 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order.

Specifically, Petitioner failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee

as ordered by the Magistrate Judge. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties

and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On June 22, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-01487-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 08/17/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Petitioner contends he paid the filing fee in April of 2006, and has submitted several applications to

proceed in forma pauperis. However, Petitioner was repeatedly informed in this case and in others

that the Court did not receive the filing fees he allegedly forwarded. In addition, the Court informed

Petitioner that his complaints of obstruction and malfeasance by the prison trust account office were

unsubstantiated and unfounded because he failed to provide any specifics on his attempts to comply,

despite having several opportunities to do so.

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, the Court finds that the Findings

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 14, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01487-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2