Opinion
No. CIV S-07-2563-FCD-CMK-P.
May 5, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition 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 Eastern District of California local rules.
On February 4, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of this action because petitioner has failed to comply with the court's orders issued on December 6, 2007, and January 8, 2008, requiring him to name the correct respondent. In his objections, petitioner argues that, had the magistrate judge exercised his discretion to appoint counsel, he would have been able to comply with the court's orders. However, petitioner did not require assistance from counsel to comply. The magistrate made it very clear that the correct respondent is the warden of petitioner's prison. All petitioner had to do was file an amended petition naming his prison warden. Yet, petitioner has failed to do so.
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 February 4, 2008, are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with court rules and orders; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.