Warden

(HC) Hinojosa v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 20232:22-cv-01780California485 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT GEORGE HINOJOSA, No. 2:22-cv-01780 KJM DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER WARDEN, SATF/SP, Respondent. 16 A petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed, it appears, on behalf of petitioner, Robert Hinojosa, by a fellow inmate, who identifies himself as Joshua Davis Bland. 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 April 10, 2023, 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.) Mr. Bland has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court…

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.