Warden

(HC) Garfio-Rubio v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 3, 20242:23-cv-00854California418 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 CESAR GARFIO-RUBIO, No. 2:23-cv-00854-KJM-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 29, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to…

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.