(HC) Chavez v. Spearman

Opinion

MIKE JOSEPH CHAVEZ, Jr., No. 2:19-cv-1169 KJM DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 10, 2020, 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. Mr. Chavez requested and obtained an extension of time to file objections, but did not object. Nor has the Respondent objected. 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 June 10, 2020, are adopted in full; 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. DATED: December 2, 2020.