Ortez-Lucero v. Hatton, 2:18-cv-2982-KJM-EFB P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200219c30
Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2020
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , Chief District Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings a
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , Chief District Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings an..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Chief District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court. . . ."). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied;
3. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and
4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Source: Leagle
