Warden

(PC) Beeson v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 8, 20242:23-cv-01621California403 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAYLOR A. BEESON, No. 2:23-cv-1621 DJC CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER WARDEN F.C.I. HERLONG, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil action. 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 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that objections could be filed. The time for filing objections has expired and Plaintiff has not filed objections. Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant 27 1 On October 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued separate Finding and Recommendations (ECF No. 22) that will be…

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.