(HC) Pulizzano v. Benavidez

Opinion

JAMES JOSEPH PULIZZANO, No. 2:21-cv-0503 WBS 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 November 28, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 November 28, 2022, are adopted in full; 2. Claim 2 in petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is denied as moot; and 4. Respondent is directed to file an answer with respect to claims | and 3 appearing in petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus within 30 days. Dated: January 5, 2023 / 4 , . ak. 2 / WILLIAMB.SHUBB i (isis UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE puli0503.jo