Cooper

(HC) Raney v. Cooper

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 20242:23-cv-02929California377 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 BRIAN PHILLIP RANEY, No. 2:23-cv-2929-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JIM COOPER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 12, 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. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner 23 has not filed 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 the Petitioner’s 26 responsibility to always keep the Court apprised of his current address. …

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.