(HC) Romero v. Warden

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 19, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01068·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN ARREOLA ROMERO, No. 2:23-cv-01068-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v.

14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On June 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and 2 || recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to 3 || keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. In accordance with Local Rule 182(f), 4 || service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2024, ECF No. 7, are 7 || adopted in full. 8 2. Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF NO. 6, is granted. 9 3. This action is dismissed as moot. 10 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 11 | DATED: August 16, 2024. 12

4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Romero v. Warden, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(HC) Romero v. Warden ((HC) Romero v. Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)