(HC) Odom v. De La Cruz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM, No. 2:17-cv-00233-TLN-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANISSA DE LA CRUZ, 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 April 30, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 63.) The time 23 to file objections has passed, and neither party 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 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 April 30, 2024 (ECF No. 63), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 62) is construed as a Motion to 5 Amend and is DENIED; 6 3. The First Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 25) is DENIED; 7 4. The Court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 8 US.C. § 2253; and 9 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 || Dated: June 13, 2024 11 /) 12 | jf

14 Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28