ANGEL v. ROE

Full title: GARY GENE ANGEL, Petitioner, v. E. ROE, Warden, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 4, 2006

No. CIV S 02-0247 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S 02-0247 FCD PAN P.

January 4, 2006

ORDER

FRANK DAMRELL Jr., District Judge

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 31, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On October 20, 2005, the court extended time to file objections. On November 18 and 28, 2005, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. The petition for habeas corpus is denied.