(HC) Price v. The People

Opinion

EUGENE PRICE, No. 2:24-cv-03418-TLN-CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 February 3, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. This deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not filed 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 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: 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 3, 2025, are ADOPTED in full; 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily DISMISSED; and 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. DATED: March 28, 2025 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE