(HC) Branch v. Yates, No. 2:2008cv02761 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/27/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 22 ADOPTED IN FULL; the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Branch v. Yates Doc. 26 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 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties 25 that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 2 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 4 ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 8, 2010 are adopted in full. 6 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 7 DATED: January 27, 2011 8 9 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 On December 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” The substance of this document, however, was a request for an extension of time in which to file Petitioner’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which was granted, and a request for the appointment of counsel, which was denied. Petitioner failed to file his objections in compliance with the extended deadline. 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.
