Sherman

(HC) Camel v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 25, 20192:18-cv-01560California2,009 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PERCY LAMONTE CAMEL, No. 2:18-cv-01560-TLN-EFB Petitioner, v. ORDER STUART SHERMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 31, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 fourteen days. (ECF No. 16.) On August 7, 2019, Petitioner filed his Objections to Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 17.) This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th…

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.