(HC) James v. Sacramento County Superior Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-1511-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 3, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) The time to 23 file objections has passed, and Petitioner did not file any objections. 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 on July 3, 2024 (ECF No. 7), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5 1); and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 | Date: August 15, 2024 8 ry /) 9 “ \/ Lu

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