Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon

E.D. California

Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02488

StatusUnknown

This text of Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon (Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JOHN GRIGSBY, Case No. 2:24-cv-2488-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KEVIN HIXON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Melvin John Grigsby (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner has not filed 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 keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 /// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The court has reviewed the file and finds 4 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) are ADOPTED in full; 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; 9 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2253; and 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly. 12 Date: September 9, 2025 13 14 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JOHN GRIGSBY, Case No. 2:24-cv-2488-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KEVIN HIXON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Melvin John Grigsby (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner has not filed 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 keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 /// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The court has reviewed the file and finds 4 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) are ADOPTED in full; 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; 9 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2253; and 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly. 12 Date: September 9, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melvin John Grigsby v. Kevin Hixon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-john-grigsby-v-kevin-hixon-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack