Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Steven Robert Sloan
Petitioner

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

STEVEN ROBERT SLOAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01467 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #25]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #19]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #6]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND

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 November 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion for reconsideration be GRANTED, Respondent’s motion to

dismiss be GRANTED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of

Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 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 ten (10) days of the date of service of the order. On December 4, 2006, Petitioner filed

objections.

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 01/03/07 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

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. The Magistrate Judge was presented

with two different sets of facts, and the Magistrate Judge choose to believe Respondent’s evidence

on how and when Petitioner’s document was mailed. Nothing in the objections convinces the court

the Magistrate Judge was incorrect. The sheer number of days that would have passed between

October 21, 2005 and November 14, 2006 negate Petitioner’s contentions that although mail is

“supposed to be” taken to the mail room daily, in reality it sometimes “piles up” and could have been

delayed by human error. While Petitioner’s evidence concerning the actual practices of actual mail

pick up might explain a few days difference, it simply does not explain the difference in dates found

here.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 17, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2