Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by

PAUL JENNINGS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

ORDER

LAWRENCE KARLTON, Senior District Judge

Petitioner, a California civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 9, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that petitioner's copy of the findings and recommendations were returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (docket no. 5), are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JENNINGS v. PEOPLE
(Apr 4, 2008)