(HC) Rodriguez-Garcia v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, No. 2:23-cv-00849-TLN-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, FCI-HERLONG, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251. 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 March 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 14.) Neither 23 party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 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). The Court has 27 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 28 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) 1s DENIED. 4 3. Respondent is directed to file an answer to Petitioner’s § 2241 application within 30 5 | days from the date of this Order and to lodge any relevant parts of the record for the Court’s 6 || review on the merits. 7 | Date: April 17, 2025 8 2 Lea tly 10 TROY L. NUNLEY 11 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28