Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00961-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Lowell Kentz
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00961 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #17]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[Doc. #8]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On November 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED, Petitioner’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction be DENIED, and 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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 22 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

On November 29, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 his objections, Petitioner contends he has been deprived of 27 days good conduct time

credits as a result of the disciplinary hearing. He did not present this claim in his petition. In any

case, the Magistrate Judge correctly found the prison disciplinary hearing comported with due

process. The guilty finding was supported by the evidence.

Petitioner also alleges he did not receive a copy of the disciplinary hearing officer’s report as

found by the Magistrate Judge. He also did not raise this claim in his petition; therefore, it not

properly before the Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; and

4. 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 1:06-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2