(HC) Hatchett v. Clark

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20212:21-cv-00428California614 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:21-cv-00428-TLN-DB Petitioner, v. ORDER KEN CLARK, Respondent. 16 Petitioner Cecil Jerome Hatchett (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 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 July 27, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 9), which have been considered by the Court. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.…

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.