(HC) Afzal v. Kay

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN AFZAL, No. 2:20-cv-1614 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 14, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 13. Petitioner has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2021, ECF No. 13, are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. The petition is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for the reason set forth 7 || inthe February 19, 2021 Screening Order (ECF No. 10). See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 8 | Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; 9 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 2253; and 11 4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case. 12 | DATED: July 6, 2021 13 14 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28