Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00886/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00886-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonas David Smith
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONAS DAVID SMITH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0886 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 12, 14]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending

before the court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

On February 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that

recommended the court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this petition as

moot. These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

Case 1:06-cv-00886-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 04/30/07 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

thirty days. After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner filed objections on March 20,

2007. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

objections do not explicitly disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the relief sought

in the petition is moot. Instead, the objections’ focus on general delays in this action do not

provide a reason to not adopt the Findings and Recommendations. To the extent Petitioner

desires to file a new petition concerning other claims, Petitioner may do so. However, the

current Petition’s claims are moot, and as such, this action is subject to dismissal.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

February 15, 2007, are a adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions in this case, enter 

judgment for Respondent and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00886-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2