Madden

(HC) Rodriguez v. Madden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 25, 20232:22-cv-01539California341 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN REFUGIO RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:22-cv-1539 WBS KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER MADDEN, Warden, 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 May 19, 2023, 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. On June 14, 2023, petitioner was granted a 30-day extension of time to file objections. 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 conclusions of law are…

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.