Warden

(HC) Velasquez-Rincon v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 20242:23-cv-00837California492 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---- 11 JESUS MANUEL VELASQUEZ-RINCON, No. 2:23-cv-0837 WBS CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG, Respondent. 17 ----oo0oo---- Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket No. 1.) 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 January 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that the case be dismissed under Local Rules 182(f) and 110 based on petitioner’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. (Docket No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were mailed to all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed…

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.