Penzone

(HC) Bartlett v. Penzone

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 5, 20192:18-cv-03052California494 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALAN M. BARTLETT, No. 2:18-cv-3052 KJM CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER PAUL PENZONE, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a prisoner in the state of Arizona proceeding pro se, filed this action on a form petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 25, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 …

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.