Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01543/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01543-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, No. CIV S-06-1543-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

FELKER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On May 25, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the

findings and recommendations have been filed.

In petitioner’s objections, he states that the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he

failed to exercise diligence is in error. Specifically, he states that, contrary to the Magistrate

Judge’s factual finding, he did in fact file a motion for an evidentiary hearing in state court. 

Case 2:06-cv-01543-FCD-CMK Document 27 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Petitioner attaches copies of state court documents in support of his objections. A review of

these documents, however, does not support petitioner’s assertion. While petitioner’s counsel

filed a request for additional funding in order to expand the scope of investigation, this is not the

same as filing a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, regardless of whether petitioner

was diligent, the Magistrate Judge is correct that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this

case.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 25, 2007, are adopted in

full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16) and motion to

expand the record (Doc. 22) are denied.

DATE: July 6, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01543-FCD-CMK Document 27 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2