(HC) Mosier v. Honea

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD NOLEN MOSIER, No. 2:24-cv-02282-TLN-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KOREY HONEA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Chad Nolen Mosier (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 4, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 8.) This deadline has 23 passed, and Petitioner has not filed 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 4, 2025, (ECF No. 8), are 4 ADOPTED in full; 5 2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily DISMISSED without 6 leave to amend; and 7 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 8 2253. 9 | DATED: March 28, 2025

11 7, 12 TROY L. NUNLEY 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28