Opinion
No. CIV S-05-1485-FCD-CMK-P.
November 5, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole in 2003. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 18, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In his objections, petitioner challenges the magistrate judge's finding that petitioner had not demonstrated any job plans. Petitioner states that the ". . . finding is not sustainable in light of the fact that Mr. Withers had obtained a letter from a welding company that would employ him upon his release." He cites page 42 of the transcript of his 2003 parole suitability hearing in support of this contention. However, the referenced letter was produced at petitioner's prior suitability hearing several years earlier and, according to petitioner, indicated that he had an offer of employment if he was released "fairly soon." While this shows that petitioner had employment plans at the time of his prior suitability hearing, it does not show that he had such plans in 2003, which was not "fairly soon" after the letter was originally prepared. By the terms of the letter, the employment offer had expired by 2003 and petitioner did not produce any similar letter showing employment plans in 2003.
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 September 18, 2007, are adopted in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.