Legal Opinion
Canales v. Roe
District Court, C.D. California
Decided December 11, 1996No. CV 96-6804-CBM(E)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CONSUELO BLAND MARSHALL, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court approves and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the Judgment…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Canales v. RoeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6351, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8805 Carlos Renan-Perez Canales v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998