Baughman

(HC) Jones v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 20232:21-cv-02241California339 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY JONES, No. 2:21-cv-02241-TLN-KJN Petitioner, v. ORDER DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 October 20, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 fourteen days. Petitioner was granted thirty-day extensions of time to file objections on December 5, 2022, and February 2, 2023. Neither party 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…

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.