From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gastelum v. Paramo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 3, 2014
NO. LA CV 12-08260-VBF-MAN (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014)

Opinion

NO. LA CV 12-08260-VBF-MAN

12-03-2014

JOE RODRIGUEZ GASTELUM, JR., Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document ("Doc") 1), the respondent's answer (Doc 10), the Lodged Documents listed in Doc 11, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), and the applicable law. The time for objecting to the R&R has passed, and no objections have been filed. It is ordered that:

The well-reasoned Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

The habeas corpus petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment shall be entered by separate document. DATED: December 3, 2014

/s/_________

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Gastelum v. Paramo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 3, 2014
NO. LA CV 12-08260-VBF-MAN (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014)
Case details for

Gastelum v. Paramo

Case Details

Full title:JOE RODRIGUEZ GASTELUM, JR., Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 3, 2014

Citations

NO. LA CV 12-08260-VBF-MAN (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014)

Citing Cases

Phongboupha v. Hedgpeth

The Supreme Court "has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial…