(HC) Pereira v. Swarthout

Opinion

RONALD JOSEPH PEREIRA, No. 2:14-cv-0530 KJM AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 16, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice to that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 44. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. //// 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 December 16, 2019, ECF No. 44, are adopted in full. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. DATED: February 18, 2020.