(HC) Harlow v. Ndoh

Opinion

STEVEN FRANK HARLOW, No. 2:17-cv-00922 MCE DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 13, 2021, 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 thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 April 13, 2021 (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 for the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations. Dated: August 25, 2021 : Mater LEK hu rfl ASX, Xe: SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE