Unknown

(HC) Vasques v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 20202:20-cv-01361California311 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL VASQUES, No. 2:20-cv-01361-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Daniel Vasques (“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 August 24, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner 23 has not 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 Valley Unified…

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.