-DAD (HC) Haller v. Biter, No. 2:2010cv03446 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/10/2011 ORDERING that the 12 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Petitioner's 10 renewed motion for a stay and abeyance is DENIED. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings on petitioner's original petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (HC) Haller v. Biter Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES D. HALLER, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. WARDEN BITER, Respondent. ORDER / 15 16 No. CIV S-10-3446 WBS DAD P 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 Rule 302. 19 On August 2, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. On 22 September 2, 2011, the court granted petitioner a sixty-day extension of time to file objections. 23 Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 2, 2011, are adopted in full; 2 2. Petitioner’s renewed motion for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 10) is denied; 3 4 and 3. This matter be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 5 proceedings on petitioner’s original petition for writ of habeas corpus. 6 DATED: November 10, 2011 7 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.
