Matteson

(HC) Pennyman v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 6, 20242:23-cv-02588California356 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTONIO D. PENNYMAN, No. 2:23-cv-02588-TLN-AC Petitioner, v. ORDER GIGI MATTESON, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 Rule 302. On July 29, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties, and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 16.) Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations, which the Court considered. (ECF No. 17.) 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 Britt v. Simi Valley…

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.