(HC) Jayne v. Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 2:2006cv01002 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 11 signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 01/25/07 ORDERING that the habeas petition 1 is DENIED insofar as it alleges that the prosecution refiled charges upon which petitioner had not been held to answer at the preliminary hearing. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)

Download PDF
(HC) Jayne v. Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Case 2:06-cv-01002-LKK-KJM Document 13 Filed 01/26/2007 Doc. 13 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL AARON JAYNE, 11 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1002 LKK KJM P vs. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Respondents. ORDER / 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 20 On December 4, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner 23 has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-01002-LKK-KJM 1 2 3 Document 13 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 of 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 4, 2006, are adopted in full; and 2. The habeas petition is denied insofar as it alleges that the prosecution refiled 4 charges upon which petitioner had not been held to answer at the preliminary hearing. 5 DATED: January 25, 2007. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.