(HC) Smith v. Sacramento County

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 30, 20212:21-cv-00439California353 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEVIN D. SMITH, No. 2:21-cv-0439 JAM CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Respondents. 16 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule…

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.