Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06577/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06577-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Delfino Machado
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

DELFINO MACHADO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-CV-6577 REC LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[Doc. #16]

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #14]

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 March 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued 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 March 14, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:03-cv-06577-REC-LJO Document 17 Filed 04/07/06 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 also filed a motion for discovery on March 27, 2006.

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. In addition, Petitioner’s motion for

discovery must be denied, because the record before the Court is more than sufficient to render a

determination in this matter and the additional documentation Petitioner seeks would be cumulative.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 2, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06577-REC-LJO Document 17 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2