(HC) Martin v. Walker, No. 2:2009cv01929 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on October 14, 2009 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2009, are adopted in full;Petitioner's Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed without prejudice; and Petitioner may f ile his Eighth Amendment claim in a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, however, the court makes no decision as to whether this claim would be timely, under the relevant statute of limitations, or whether Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Martin v. Walker Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 O.Z. MARTIN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-1929 LKK GGH P vs. J. WALKER, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 ORDER / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 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 General Order No. 262. 19 On July 29, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 twenty days. Neither party has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2009, are adopted in full; 2 2. Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed without prejudice; and 3 3. Petitioner may file his Eighth Amendment claim in a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 4 complaint, however, the court makes no decision as to whether this claim would be timely, under 5 the relevant statute of limitations, or whether Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies, as 6 required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. 7 DATED: October 14, 2009. 8 9 10 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.
