Fraunheim

(HC) Klippenstein v. Fraunheim

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20212:21-cv-00086California633 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDY SCOTT KLIPPENSTEIN, No. 2:21-cv-0086 KJM GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER SCOTT FRAUNHEIM, 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 March 19, 2021, 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. ECF No. 23. Petitioner timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 24. The magistrate judge subsequently filed an errata to replace one sentence in the March 19, 2021 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 25. The objection period was not extended for the amendment of the findings and recommendations…

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.