Spearman

(HC) Knight v. Spearman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 20202:19-cv-01633California532 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLARENCE V. KNIGHT, No. 2:19-cv-1633 KJM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER MARION E. SPEARMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 July 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 twenty-one days. F&Rs, ECF No. 16. Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Respondent did not file a reply. 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, including a careful review of Petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate…

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.