From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 6, 2006
No. 2:05-cv-1775-MCE-KJM-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:05-cv-1775-MCE-KJM-P.

July 6, 2006


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner 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 May 2, 2006, 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 (20) 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 was 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 filed May 2, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. This case is closed.


Summaries of

Mills v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 6, 2006
No. 2:05-cv-1775-MCE-KJM-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2006)
Case details for

Mills v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH MILLS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 6, 2006

Citations

No. 2:05-cv-1775-MCE-KJM-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2006)