(HC) Bharth v. Samuel

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIT BHARTH, No. 2:23-cv-0259 DJC AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANNY SAMUEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed an application for 18 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On November 21, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 22 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice 23 to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 24 within twenty-one days. ECF No. 17. Neither party filed objections to the findings and 25 recommendations. 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 27 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law 28 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 1 | (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and 2 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 3 | analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 17) are adopted; 6 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 7 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 8 | U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and 10 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ January 17, 2025 “Daniel J CoD Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28