Warden

(HC) Nuno Urenda v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 1, 20242:23-cv-01410California315 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 FRANCISCO NUNO URENDA, No. 2:23-cv-1410 DJC AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 February 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice 22 to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 23 within twenty-one days. ECF No. 14. Neither party filed objections to the findings 24 and 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…

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.