Unknown

(HC) Clarke v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 12, 20242:23-cv-03004California365 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 LEE KELLY CLARKE, No. 2:23-cv-3004-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 07, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to 26 always keep the Court apprised of his current address. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),…

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.