Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00812-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
Lorenzo Fosselman
Petitioner

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

LORENZO FOSSELMAN, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

M. S. EVANS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00812 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #6]

ORDER DISMISSING GROUNDS THREE,

FOUR, AND FIVE FROM THE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 14, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Grounds Three, Four, and part of Five be DISMISSED with prejudice from the

petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner is no longer in custody for his 1997 conviction; therefore,

that conviction is not open to challenge. Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Ross, 532 U.S. 394,

403-404 (2001). 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 July 17, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In

Case 1:07-cv-00812-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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 That part of Ground Five that concerns the 1997 conviction is DISMISSED.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 14, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Grounds Three, Four, and part of Five are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the 1

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and

3. The case is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00812-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2