Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02885/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02885-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS D. CALDWELL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv2885-MMA (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 10]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 11]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

Petitioner Marcus D. Caldwell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2254,

challenging the state trial court’s sentencing of Petitioner to a stipulated term of six years for one

count of sale of cocaine base in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) and one

strike prior under California Penal Code § 667(b)-(I). See Doc. No. 4. Respondent filed an

Answer to the First Amended Petition, contending the petition should be denied on both

procedural and substantive grounds. See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff filed a Traverse in response. See

Doc. No. 8. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick for

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Civil Local

- 1 - 11cv2885

Case 3:11-cv-02885-MMA-DHB Document 12 Filed 09/18/12 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

27

28

Rule HC.2. Judge Bartick has issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending that the

petition be denied as it is without merit. See Doc. No. 10.

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Having considered Petitioner’s objections and conducted a de novo review of the pertinent

portions of the record, the Court concludes that Judge Bartick issued an accurate report and wellreasoned recommendation that the instant petition be denied as lacking merit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment in favor of

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv2885

Case 3:11-cv-02885-MMA-DHB Document 12 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 2