(HC) Fair v. Atchley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JOSEPH D. FAIR, JR., No. 2:20-cv-01107-TLN-DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 15 Respondent. 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 August 24, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 24.) Neither 23 party filed 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). The Court has 27 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 28 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 24, 2022 (ECF No. 24) are 3 | ADOPTED in full; 4 2. The stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) is LIFTED; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this action. 6 | DATED: September 21, 2022 7 () jf 8 “ ! Vu 9 Troy L. Nuhlep> United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28