Covello

Richard Gosztyla v. P. Covello

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20252:25-cv-01352California303 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:25-cv-1352-TLN-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 P. COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Richard Gosztyla (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147…

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.