(HC) Craver v. Felker, et al, No. 2:2006cv01543 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 32 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/4/08, DENYING 28 motion for stay and abeyance. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Clerk to enter judgment and close file. CASE CLOSED(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Craver v. Felker, et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV S-06-1543-FCD-CMK-P vs. ORDER FELKER, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition 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 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On December 26, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the 23 findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 by proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 26, 2007, are adopted 5 2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance order (Doc. 28) is denied; 6 3. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied; and 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 4 8 in full; DATED: February 4, 2008. 9 10 11 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
