Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00509/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00509-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Rinard
Petitioner
Jeffrey 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

TIMOTHY RINARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00509 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

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

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner

to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 August 25, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00509-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 10/04/06 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

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, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 506 U.S.

466 (2000), is not applied retroactively on collateral review. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,

282 F.3d 664 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 939 (2002); Cook v. United States, 386 F.3d 949 (9 th th

Cir. 2004); In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336 (11 Cir. 2005). Petitioner's objections present no grounds th

to question the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00509-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2