Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00572/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00572-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Daniel J. Martinez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL J. MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

1:11-cv-572 AWI MJS HC

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND REFERRING 

MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Doc. 26]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 

(“F&R”) that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This F&R

was served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 

days of the date of service of the order. Petitioner filed objections on July 25, 2014.

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

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

including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's F&R is 

generally supported by the record and proper analysis. 

However, the Court cannot adopt the F&R’s analysis of Petitioner’s seventh 

ground for relief. It appears that the F&R addresses an issue that was not actually 

Case 1:11-cv-00572-AWI-JDP Document 28 Filed 01/20/15 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

2

raised by the Petitioner in his seventh ground. Therefore, the Court will adopt the F&R 

with respect to Petitioner’s first six claims, but will decline to adopt it with respect to the 

seventh claim. The Court will refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge to issue a 

new Findings and Recommendation with respect to Petitioner’s seventh ground for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 19, 2014, is ADOPTED in 

part as explained above;

2. The first six grounds for relief raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus are DENIED;

3. The Court respectfully DECLINES to adopt the Findings and 

Recommendation as to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus’s seventh 

ground for relief; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of a 

Findings and Recommendation with respect to the Petition for Habeas 

Corpus’s seventh ground for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00572-AWI-JDP Document 28 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 2