(HC) Royal v. Zuniga, No. 1:2015cv00260 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Court Dismiss the Petition as Moot re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas Carol Royal, II; referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/3/15. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 THOMAS CAROL ROYAL, II, Petitioner, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT Respondent. 10 11 Case No. 1:15-cv-00260-LJO-BAM HC (Doc. 12) v. R. ZUNIGA, 13 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner sought an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to credit 17 him for time served after the offense date for a conviction that had later been invalidated. The Court 18 referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 19 and 304. 20 21 On May 1, 2015, Respondent moved to dismiss the case as moot since the Bureau of Prisons 22 had credited Petitioner for the time served and released him from prison. Petitioner did not file any 23 opposition to the motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 24 recommendations in which she recommended that the Court dismiss the petition as moot. 25 26 The findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties by mail on June 26, 2015, provided that objections could be served within thirty days and replies within fourteen days 27 28 after the filing of any objections. Neither party filed objections. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 2 entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and 3 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 5 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed June 26, 2015, be adopted in full and the petition dismissed as moot. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.