(HC)Baker v. Kramer, No. 2:2008cv00311 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 5/3/10 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 3/18/10 16 are ADOPTED in full; Petitioner's Application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L) Modified on 5/4/2010 (Mena-Sanchez, L).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Baker v. Kramer Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARK JAY BAKER, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-08-0311 FCD DAD P Respondent. 11 ORDER vs. C. KRAMER, / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 18, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. The decision of the magistrate judge is also consistent with the recent en 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 banc decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Hayward v. Marshall, ___ F.3d ___, No. 2 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 18, 2010, are adopted in full; 5 6 7 and 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. DATED: May 3, 2010. 8 9 10 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
