Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05064/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05064-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Isreal
Petitioner
J. Sullivan
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

 In fact, on October 27, 2006, a copy of the Findings and Recommendations was returned to this Court as 1

undeliverable with a notation “No longer at Institution.” (Court Doc. 31.) Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f) each

party is under a continuing duty to inform the Court of any change of address. Absent such notice, service of

documents at the prior address of record of the party is effective service. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ISREAL,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-5064 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

[Doc. 29]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This 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. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed

objections.

1

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. 

Case 1:04-cv-05064-AWI -SMS Document 33 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 19, 2006, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

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

terminates this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05064-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2