Estrada v. Biter

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting 48 Findings and Recommendation, Denying In Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Evidentiary Hearing, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/17/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JAIME ESTRADA,

11

No. 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG-HC

Petitioner,

12

v.

13

MARTIN BITER,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(Doc. No. 48)

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of

18
19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to the assigned magistrate

20

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. On August 19, 2016, the

21

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that an evidentiary hearing

22

be held with respect to petitioner’s first claim for relief and that relief be denied with respect to

23

the remaining claims of the pending petition. (Doc. No. 48.) The findings and recommendation

24

were served on the parties with notice provided that any objections thereto were to be filed within

25

thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Respondent filed a notice of no objection to

26

the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52.) To date, petitioner has filed no objections to

27

the August 19, 2016findings and recommendations, and the time for doing so has passed.

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

2

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and

4

proper analysis.

5

Accordingly:

6

1. The findings and recommendations issued August 19, 2016 (Doc. No. 48) are adopted

7
8

in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as to petitioner’s second and third

9
10

claims for relief; and
3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge in order to conduct an evidentiary
hearing with respect to petitioner’s first claim for federal habeas relief.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 17, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2