Hill

(HC) Spillers v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 27, 20202:19-cv-00567California319 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH D. SPILLERS, No. 2:19-cv-00567-TLN-EFB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICK HILL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Joseph D. Spillers (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 September 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 24.) Neither 23 party has filed 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 See Britt v. Simi…

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.