Growdon

(HC) Rutledge v. Growdon

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20212:18-cv-01600California355 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 TRAVIS RUTLEDGE, No. 2:18-cv-1600 KJM AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER DEAN GROWDON, SHERIFF, Respondent. 17 Petitioner, formerly a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 February 12, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 9. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143,…

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.