(HC) Branch v. Yates, No. 2:2008cv02761 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/3/2011. Petitioner's 28 Objections to Findings and Recommendations are deemed untimely and therefore DISREGARDED. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Branch v. Yates Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES BRANCH, 11 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-CV-2761 JAM CHS P vs. JAMES A. YATES, Respondent. ORDER / 16 Petitioner, Charles Branch, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 17 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently serving an indeterminate 18 sentence of fifty years to life following his convictions by jury trial in the Solano County Superior 19 Court, Case No. FCR215293, for first degree murder with a penalty enhancement for personally and 20 intentionally discharging a firearm to cause death. With his petition, Petitioner presents various 21 claims challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. 22 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 8, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and 24 recommendations herein which recommended that the petition be denied and informed Petitioner 25 that he had twenty-one days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. On 26 December 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Objections to Findings and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Recommendations.” The substance of the document, however, was a request for an extension of 2 time in which to file Petitioner’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 3 which was granted, and a request for appointment of counsel, which was denied. Petitioner 4 subsequently failed to file his objections in compliance with the extended deadline. 5 On January 28, 2011, the United States District Court Judge assigned to Petitioner’s 6 case issued an order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in whole. On 7 January 31, 2011, Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and 8 recommendations. Petitioner is advised that his objections are untimely as he failed to file them by 9 the extended deadline, and the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations became final when 10 they were adopted by on January 28, 2010. In any event, the Court has reviewed Petitioner’s 11 objections and finds no reason to set aside or vacate judgment in this case. 12 Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Petitioner’s untimely objections to the 13 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are DISREGARDED. 14 DATED: February 3, 2011. 15 16 /s/ John A. Mendez U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
