(HC) Potter v. State of Idaho

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 20242:23-cv-02136California349 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ONIS CARRABINE POTTER, No. 2:23-cv-2136 DJC CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF IDAHO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 12, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice 22 to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 23 filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and 24 recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law 27 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452,…

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.