From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P.

February 22, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 Rule 302.

On January 5, 2011, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 5, 2011, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's remaining claims — other than the ineffective assistance of counsel claim with respect to the competency hearing, where counsel has been appointed to aid in providing a more complete analysis and representation of what occurred — for writ of habeas corpus are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2011


Summaries of

Smith v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Smith v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES RAY SMITH, Petitioner, v. M. McDONALD, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)