Robertson

(HC) Williams v. Robertson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 19, 20242:21-cv-01531California328 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS, No. 2:21-cv-01531 KJM CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER WARDEN JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 29, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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-one days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.