(HC) James v. Sacramento County Superior Court

Opinion

RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-1511-TLN-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER COURT, Respondent. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 July 3, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) The time to file objections has passed, and Petitioner did not file any objections. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on July 3, 2024 (ECF No. 7), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1); and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Date: August 15, 2024 ry /) “ \/ Lu

United States District Judge