(HC) Cross v. Corona

Opinion

GEORGE EUGENE CROSS, also known No. 2:09-CV-0488-TLN-DMC-P as Arcion, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL CORONA, Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. Final judgment was entered in this case on March 31, 2010. (ECF No. 62.) On February 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations addressing Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 115.) Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF No. 125.) 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, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2025, (ECF No. 115), are ADOPTED in full; 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 75), is DENIED; 3. All other pending post-judgment motions, (ECF Nos. 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 119, 120, 124, 126, and 132) are DENIED as moot; 4. Any similar future requests will be disregarded; and 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. DATED: March 28, 2025 Z, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE