From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. McEwen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Dec 6, 2013
CV 11-2680-SJO (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013)

Opinion


WILLIAM C. MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. L.S. McEWEN, Warden, Respondent. No. CV 11-2680-SJO (JEM) United States District Court, C.D. California. December 6, 2013

          ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has filed Objections, and the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

         IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.


Summaries of

Marshall v. McEwen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Dec 6, 2013
CV 11-2680-SJO (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Marshall v. McEwen

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM C. MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. L.S. McEWEN, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Dec 6, 2013

Citations

CV 11-2680-SJO (JEM) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013)

Citing Cases

James v. Foulk

Therefore, Teague does not bar Ground Ten(a). See Chaidez v. McDonald, 2015 WL 575849, *15 (C.D. Cal. 2015)…