(HC) Cross v. Corona

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20252:09-cv-00488California367 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEORGE EUGENE CROSS, also known No. 2:09-CV-0488-TLN-DMC-P as Arcion, 12 Petitioner, ORDER v.

MICHAEL CORONA,

15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this petition 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 Eastern District of California local rules. Final judgment was entered in this case on March 31, 2010. (ECF No. 62.) On February 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations addressing Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 115.) Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF No. 125.) 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…

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.