Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc.

E.D. California

Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc.

DecidedOctober 27, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01258

StatusUnknown

This text of Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc. (Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc.) 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

Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON A. IAGOUNOV, 12 Petitioner, No. 2:25-cv-1258-TLN-CSK 13 v. 14 AUSA, FBI, etc., ORDER 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Anton A. Iagounov (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 11, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 7.) On August 4, 2025, 23 the July 11, 2025, findings and recommendations were re-served on Petitioner. Petitioner did not 24 file objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 1 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. See also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 3 | Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 7), are ADOPTED in full; and 6 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 7 | Date: October 24, 2025 Zeal 9 TROY L. NUNLEY 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON A. IAGOUNOV, 12 Petitioner, No. 2:25-cv-1258-TLN-CSK 13 v. 14 AUSA, FBI, etc., ORDER 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Anton A. Iagounov (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 11, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 7.) On August 4, 2025, 23 the July 11, 2025, findings and recommendations were re-served on Petitioner. Petitioner did not 24 file objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 1 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. See also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 3 | Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 7), are ADOPTED in full; and 6 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 7 | Date: October 24, 2025 Zeal 9 TROY L. NUNLEY 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anton A. Iagounov v. AUSA, FBI, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anton-a-iagounov-v-ausa-fbi-etc-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack