-EFB (HC) Crane v. McDonald, No. 2:2009cv00852 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/1/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 1/20/11 40 are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's 9/15/10 MOTION TO DISMISS 26 is GRANTED in part and Petitioner's claims regar ding the validity of the 11/22/05 RVR (denominated in the Findings and Recommendations as claims 1 through 3) are DISMISSED. Respondent is GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order to file a dispositive Motion regarding the remaining parole-denial claim or to answer to the petition; and Petitioner's 10/18/10 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 30 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-EFB (HC) Crane v. McDonald Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-0852 KJM EFB P MIKE McDONALD, Respondent. 14 ORDER / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application 16 17 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Despite an extension of 22 time granted to petitioner, neither party filed timely objections to the findings and 23 recommendations.1 24 ///// 25 1 26 Petitioner filed belated objections, which respondent has moved to strike. Even if the objections are considered, they do not change the result the court reaches below. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 4 proper analysis.2 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 20, 2011, are adopted in full; 7 2. Respondent’s September 15, 2010 motion to dismiss, ECF 26, is granted in 8 part and petitioner’s claims regarding the validity of the November 22, 2005 RVR (denominated 9 in the findings and recommendations as claims 1 through 3) are dismissed; 10 11 3. Respondent is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file a dispositive motion regarding the remaining parole-denial claim or to answer to the petition; and 12 4. Petitioner’s October 18, 2010 motion for summary judgment, ECF 30, is 13 denied. 14 DATED: August 1, 2011. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 / 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The court the word “infra” on page 10, line 23, should be read “supra.” 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.