Cate

(HC) Mendoza v. Cate

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20202:09-cv-01710California2,378 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA, No. 2:09-cv-01710-MCE-DB Petitioner, v. ORDER MATTHEW CATE, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application 17 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302. On November 14, 2017, 19 the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on 20 all parties and which notified all parties that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 116. Respondent filed 22 Objections to the Findings and Recommendations, and Petitioner subsequently filed a 23 Reply. ECF Nos. 118, 121. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 25 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file, the Court respectfully rejects the magistrate judge’s Findings and…

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.