Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00814-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Castillo
Petitioner
Mendoza-Power
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

MARIO CASTILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

WARDEN MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00814 OWW GSA HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #16]

ORDER DENYING 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 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of the order. 

On June 24, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In

Case 1:07-cv-00814-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 07/24/08 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 12, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment; and

4. As this petition challenges a parole decision, a certificate of appealability is not required.

Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00814-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 2