Vigil v. Carey

Full title: RICHARD MARC VIGIL, Petitioner, v. THOMAS L. CAREY, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 11, 2006

No. CIV S-02-1481 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-02-1481 FCD PAN P.

August 11, 2006

ORDER

FRANK DAMRELL JR., District Judge

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, 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 June 16, 2006, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner has 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 June 16, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.