(HC) Craig v. Dagostini

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, No. 2:21-cv-01226-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 04, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner 23 did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 04, 2021, (ECF No. 11), are 3 | adopted in full; 4 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; and 5 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 2253. 7 | DATED: January 24, 2022 8 □ /) 9 “ Lu

11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28