From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaw v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. 2:05-cv-01506-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:05-cv-01506-MCE-GGH P.

May 27, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through 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 March 18, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 March 18, 2008, are adopted in full; and

2. All claims are denied, with the exception of Claim 2. An evidentiary hearing re Claim 2 on the timelines set forth in the Findings Recommendations is ordered.


Summaries of

Shaw v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. 2:05-cv-01506-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)
Case details for

Shaw v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SHAW, SR., Petitioner, v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

No. 2:05-cv-01506-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)

Citing Cases

Lionetti v. United States

A counsel's failure to make every objection, or even making the wrong objection, is not grounds for retrial.…

Bookman v. U.S.

A counsel's failure to make every objection, or even making the wrong objection, is not grounds for retrial.…