Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01174-8/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

CRAIG L. HINTON, No. 2:01-cv-1174-MCE-JFM-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

CHERYL PLILER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed this application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On November 30, 2006, 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 ten days. Following an agreed upon extension of

time, Respondent filed objections on December 5, 2006. Petitioner filed objections on January

25, 2007, and Respondent replied on January 26, 2007. All filings were considered by the

district judge.

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-01174-MCE-JFM Document 75 Filed 02/21/07 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

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orlando v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 30, 2006, are

ADOPTED; and

2. The petition for habeas corpus is denied.

Dated: February 21, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01174-MCE-JFM Document 75 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2